Read the following passage by author Y and evaluate the argument being made. Do you agree with the conclusion? Respond to each of Y’s reasons.

Philosophically, it does not make sense for natural entities like rivers to be rights-holders. First, rivers do not have the capacity to speak for themselves in court. Second, rivers do not have interests or needs. They do not feel pain, and are not aware, therefore they cannot be injured. The state of a river can change, but it does not make sense to say that any given state is “better or worse for” the river itself. Environmentalists who attempt to speak on the river’s behalf are deluding themselves. They are not really getting out of a human-centered view, because humans still have to decide what counts as a river’s injury or redress. Worse, nature’s- rights lawsuits will set dangerous precedents that will make development of any kind impossible.