NationStates Jolt Archive

Protect our Environment from Agricultural Waste, Overfishing and provide sufficient food for everyone !Vegetarianism Act
Goal : Environment ProtectionBackground : (Case Study: United States of America)
In general, feeding plants to animals and eating the animals wastes energy, water, pesticides and land. An acre of prime land can produce 40,000 lbs. of potatoes, 30,000 lbs. of carrots, 50,000 lbs. of tomatoes, or 250 lbs. of beef.
More than 70% of the U.S. grain harvest is fed to farmed animals, that is 33% of the entire world’s harvest.
The amount of animal manure produced in the U.S. is 130 times greater than the amount of human waste. One hog farm in Utah, built to produce 25 million animals per year will put out more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles.Every time it rains, excess phosphorous and nitrogen from the urine and feces of farmed animals seep into our waterways causing algae blooms to spread. Another result of agricultural runoff has been the proliferation of dinoflagellates – these being a class of algae that manifest themselves as red tides.In 1991, Pfiesteeria piscicida was discovered to be a particularly nasty dinoflagellate. It has the ability to ambush its prey by stunning it with a disorienting toxin before sucking its skin off. Known as the "cell from hell," it killed a billion fish within North Carolina’s estuaries in the summer of 1995.People who come in contact with it often experience memory loss and disorientation as well as grotesque sores on their skin. In 1982 there were 22 known species of harmful dinoflagellates. In 1997, there were over 60.
Propose :
1. Agriculture is included in Clean Water Act (USA:1972) and Hazardous Waste Act.
2. Livestock Raising is limited only for scientific research, laboratory & medical usage.
3. Animal-derivated-food from remaining of livestock raising
activity is object to 1000% Environment Tax and 500% Luxury Goods Tax.
4. Explosive usage in Fishing is banned. Amount and area of fishing would be regulated by Departement of Environmental Protection.
5. Animal-derivated-food consumption per capita should not exceed 1% of the annualy diet.

Breaching of above mentioned regulations should be penalized with maximum of 1 Million USD equivalent for private person and maximum of 1 Billion USD equivalent for
corporations, partnerships or sole propietorships

Please be reasonable and support us !
Thank you for reading ! :)

Please be reasonable and support us!

No. Even if you weren't using real world statistics (which to my knowledge was ruled a bad thing a while ago)...

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's like that "tolerance" crap on a national level.

that may be the most unreasonable thing I've ever heard

that may be the most unreasonable thing I've ever heard

No. I've made other posts that were much worse. ;)

It is not only the position of the glorious people of the People's Republic of Thanatasia, but my own personal conviction, that this resolution is nothing more than preposterous.

In fact, the Thanatasian delegation takes this resolution as a direct affront to the seriousness and solemnity of the U.N. body, and is so frivolous as to not even warrant the effort expended in composing this rebuttal. Nor would such effort be expended in even casting a vote in regards to this resolution, if it were not so incredible as to make it an absolute necessity.

Comrade Myong Sun Kim
Ambassador to the U.N., People's Republic of Thanatasia

(OOC: In other words, "No." ;-) )

I hardly see this proposal as being "reasonable".

Further, it's a blatant and intolerable attempt to strip nations of the their sovreignty by allowing the UN to rule on something that, quite frankly, is none of its damned business. This yet another case of a group trying to ram their agenda down everyone else's throats.

Guang Ming, all of the consequences you have cited do not affect anyone at the international level--in fact every real-world statistic you cited (a definite no-no, BTW) makes it clear that all of these problems took place WITHIN A SINGLE NATION. Why on earth should the U.N., an international political body, concern itself with national issues? If my nation chooses to be wasteful with its own resources that's our choice.

Oh, and it might help to spell the words in your proposal title correctly--it's Vegitarian, not VegitarianISM :rolleyes:

Protect our Environment from Agricultural Waste, Overfishing and provide sufficient food for everyone !Vegetarianism Act
Goal : Environment ProtectionBackground : (Case Study: United States of America)
In general, feeding plants to animals and eating the animals wastes energy, water, pesticides and land. An acre of prime land can produce 40,000 lbs. of potatoes, 30,000 lbs. of carrots, 50,000 lbs. of tomatoes, or 250 lbs. of beef.
More than 70% of the U.S. grain harvest is fed to farmed animals, that is 33% of the entire world’s harvest.
The amount of animal manure produced in the U.S. is 130 times greater than the amount of human waste. One hog farm in Utah, built to produce 25 million animals per year will put out more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles.Every time it rains, excess phosphorous and nitrogen from the urine and feces of farmed animals seep into our waterways causing algae blooms to spread. Another result of agricultural runoff has been the proliferation of dinoflagellates – these being a class of algae that manifest themselves as red tides.In 1991, Pfiesteeria piscicida was discovered to be a particularly nasty dinoflagellate. It has the ability to ambush its prey by stunning it with a disorienting toxin before sucking its skin off. Known as the "cell from hell," it killed a billion fish within North Carolina’s estuaries in the summer of 1995.People who come in contact with it often experience memory loss and disorientation as well as grotesque sores on their skin. In 1982 there were 22 known species of harmful dinoflagellates. In 1997, there were over 60.
Propose :
1. Agriculture is included in Clean Water Act (USA:1972) and Hazardous Waste Act.
2. Livestock Raising is limited only for scientific research, laboratory & medical usage.
3. Animal-derivated-food from remaining of livestock raising
activity is object to 1000% Environment Tax and 500% Luxury Goods Tax.
4. Explosive usage in Fishing is banned. Amount and area of fishing would be regulated by Departement of Environmental Protection.
5. Animal-derivated-food consumption per capita should not exceed 1% of the annualy diet.

Breaching of above mentioned regulations should be penalized with maximum of 1 Million USD equivalent for private person and maximum of 1 Billion USD equivalent for
corporations, partnerships or sole propietorships

Please be reasonable and support us !
Thank you for reading ! :)


http://maddox.xmission.com/suicide.html

Suicide is your only option :sniper:

OMG--now I spelled vegetarian wrong :headbang: Somebody shoot me.

BTW--I am Kritosia, speaking from my sister nation.

I'm afraid I cannot support Vegitarianism. As much as I'm sure it will help to make a healthier invironment, I'd much rather have healthy citizens. It is their choice to eat meat. I may take away their civil rights, but I will not take away their turkey.

Did you know?
Water: More than half of all the water used in the United States for all purposes is used to raise animals for food. A totally vegetarian diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, while a carnivorous diet requires more than 4,000 gallons of water per day.

Land: Of all agricultural land in the United States, 87 percent is used to raise animals for food. That's 45 percent of the total land mass of the United States.

Air: Methane is one of four greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. The world's 1.3 billion cows produce one-fifth of all methane emitted into the atmosphere.

Pollution: Raising animals for food causes more water pollution in the United States than any other industry because animals raised for food produce 20 times the excrement of the entire human population-230,000 pounds every second.

Energy: Of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the United States, more than one-third is used to raise animals for food.

Deforestation: Rain forests are being destroyed at a rate of 125,000 square miles per year. The primary cause of deforestation is raising animals for food.

Topsoil: we have already lost three-quarters of all topsoil in the United States. Eighty-five percent of topsoil erosion is directly attributable to raising animals for food.

I'm afraid I cannot support Vegitarianism. As much as I'm sure it will help to make a healthier invironment, I'd much rather have healthy citizens. It is their choice to eat meat. I may take away their civil rights, but I will not take away their turkey.

Personal Health Advantage of being Vegetarian :

1. No deficiencies. There is no nutrient necessary for optimal human functioning which cannot be obtained from plant food.

2. Avoiding high fat plus cholesterol. Animal foods are higher in fat than most plant foods, particularly saturated fats. Plants do not contain cholesterol.

3. Preventing "Carb" deficient. Meat is deficient in carbohydrates, particularly the starches which are so essential to proper health.

4. Preventing Vitamin deficient. Except for the b-complex, meat is largely deficient in vitamins.

5. Reduce Agricultural Chemicals concentration. Being higher on the food chain, animal foods contain far higher concentrations of agricultural chemicals than plant foods, including pesticides, herbicides, etc.

6. Avoiding exposure to livestock drugs. There are over 20,000 different drugs, including sterols, antibiotics, growth hormones and other veterinary drugs that are given to livestock animals. These drugs are consumed when animal foods are consumed. The dangers herein, in secondary consumption of antibiotics, are well documented.

7. Avoiding pathogenic Microorganisms. There are a host of bacteria and viruses, some quite dangerous, that are common to animals. (e.g. SARS, BSE, bird flu)When I eat meat, I eat the organisms in the meat. Micro-organisms are present in plant foods too, but their number and danger to human health is by no means comparable to that of those in meat.

8. Avoiding worms and other Parasites.

9. Shelf life differential. Plant foods last longer than animal foods. Try this experiment: Leave out a head of lettuce and a pound of hamburger for 1 day, which will make you sick?

10.Organoleptic Indications of Pathenogens. Plant foods give tell-tale signs of "going bad". Ever hear of someone getting sick from "bad broccoli"?

11.Perventing Heart Disease. Meat eating increases the risk of heart disease, this country's #1 killer. The correlation is an epidemiological fact.

12.Cancer prevention. Of all the natural cancer prevention substances found: vitamin C, B-17, hydroquionenes, beta carotene, NDGA, - none has been found to be animal derived. Yet most meats, when cooked, produce an array of benzenes and other carcinogenic compounds. Cancer is infinitely easier to prevent than cure. Soybeans contain protease inhibitor, a powerful anticancer compound. You won't find it in useful quantities in animal based food.

13. Preventing Disease Induction. The correlation between meat consumption and a wide range of degenerative diseases is well founded and includes.....

14. Preventing Osteoporosis

15. Preventing Kidney Stones and Gallstones

16. Reduce the risk of Diabetes

17. Preventing Multiple Sclerosis

18. Preventing Arthritis

19. Preventing Gum disease

20. Peventing Acne. Aggravated by animal food.

21. Reduce the possibility of Obesity. Studies confirm that vegetarians tend to be thinner than meat eaters. Obesity is considered by doctors to be a disease within itself.

22.Intestinal Toxemia. The condition of the intestinal flora is critical to overall health. Animal products putrefy the colon.

23.Transit time. Wholesome food travels quickly through the "G.I" tract, leaving little time to spoil and incite disease within the body.

24. Preventing Fiber deficient. Fiber absorbs unwanted, excess fats; cleans the intestines; provides bulk and aids in peristalsis. Plant food is high in fiber content; meat, poultry and dairy products have none.

25. Avoiding animal body wastes. Food from animals contain their waste, including adrenaline, uric and lactic acid, etc., Before adding ketchup, the biggest contributors to the "flavor profile" of a hamburger are the leftover blood and urine.

26. Reducing excess protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein. This causes excess nitrogen in the blood that creates a host of long-term health problems.

27.Longevity. To increase ones risk of getting degenerative disease means decreasing ones chance to live a naturally long healthy life. Huzas and other peoples with large centenarian populations maintain lifestyles that are relatively meat free.

28.Well Being. I just feel better since "giving up" meat and becoming vegetarian.

This poorly-concieved resolution completely ignores the fact that not all land being used by livestock production is suitable for growing crops. Our nation is working on improving our agricultural industry, but at this point we are much better at caring for livestock than we are at growing our own food. Our land is much better suited for grazing than for growing.

This resolution would force us to import most of our country's food, which would cause an economic burden that we are not prepared to deal with. The result would probably be wide-spread hunger, which would certainly be worse for our people's health than eating meat.

We would, however, consider supporting a resolution encouraging the delegates of all UN nations to eat a certain amount of meat per day. It's entirely possible that the vegetarian delegates supporting this resolution aren't eating enough of a variety of non-animal products to get a balanced diet. While it's certainly possible to be a healthy vegetarian, simply being a vegetarian does not make a person healthy. Nutritional deficiencies may be the cause behind the lapse in judgement that lead to this proposal.

This proposal is the posterchild for people who believe the United Nations does not work.

In the words of the Immortal Monty Python, "This is just silly."

Hans Wolfberg,
Vexland Ambassador & Trelleborg UN Delegate

The Armed republic of Walther Brandl has only one question for the author of this most preposterous exuse for an UN proposal.

The question for you is: Were you born this stupid, or did you just have a lot of practice?

This proposal is almost as bad as telling everyone to comply to the same religion.

My people will never surrender to such barbarism as to only eat vegetables.

*looks up from his prime rib dinner*

Two words: Hell no.

*resumes eating*

If you were in my country i'd chuck you in prison like the rest of the scum.

Personal Health Advantage of being Vegetarian :

1. No deficiencies. There is no nutrient necessary for optimal human functioning which cannot be obtained from plant food.
"Plant food," does this mean that you want us to eat fertilizer?

3. Preventing "Carb" deficient. Meat is deficient in carbohydrates, particularly the starches which are so essential to proper health.
I thought the low carb diets were the in thing right now.

7. Avoiding pathogenic Microorganisms. There are a host of bacteria and viruses, some quite dangerous, that are common to animals. (e.g. SARS, BSE, bird flu)When I eat meat, I eat the organisms in the meat. Micro-organisms are present in plant foods too, but their number and danger to human health is by no means comparable to that of those in meat.

8. Avoiding worms and other Parasites.
Proper cooking techinques will kill any harmful organisms found in meats.

10.Organoleptic Indications of Pathenogens. Plant foods give tell-tale signs of "going bad". Ever hear of someone getting sick from "bad broccoli"?
Meat products also give tell-tale signs of spoilage.

11.Perventing Heart Disease. Meat eating increases the risk of heart disease, this country's #1 killer. The correlation is an epidemiological fact.
Which country would you be talking about, and if its a RL country it doesn't count?

21. Reduce the possibility of Obesity. Studies confirm that vegetarians tend to be thinner than meat eaters. Obesity is considered by doctors to be a disease within itself.
Of course, they don't get enough "meat" on their bones :D (yes, I know it's a bad joke)

28.Well Being. I just feel better since "giving up" meat and becoming vegetarian.
And your point with this is?

I'm opposed, and number one reason - this proposal would trample viciously on personal choice.

Personal Health Advantage of being Vegetarian :

Very interesting, except that I'm not a vegetarian, in fact, I eat meat and plenty of it, and I seem not to have died yet.

Health problems have nothing to do with eating meat or not eating meat. Almost every "disadvantage" for meat-eating that you list as being countered by a vegetarian diet is a result of excessive consumption, not simply because of eating meat.

The carbohydrates point was pretty ridiculous too, because, as with some other points, you're making the assumption that people would eat nothing but meat and as previously pointed out, low-carb diets are quite popular.

The other problems also come from poor conditions in abbatoirs/slaughterhouses and bad oversight. Given better working conditions and slower line speeds, the mistakes which cause fecal contamination almost disappear. Many of the problems, such as BSE, also come from some pretty questionable agricultural practices, like feeding livestock dead animals, and not because meat is inherently unhealthy.

You also make the assumption that all land used for livestock could be used to grow crops. Not true. You also assume that all crops are of equal quality, which isn't true either. Many farms sell purely to animal feed manufacturers because their crop is of too low a grade for human consumption.

What else... what else... oh yeah:

Of all agricultural land in the United States, 87 percent is used to raise animals for food. That's 45 percent of the total land mass of the United States

According to the CIA factbook, 19.13% of the land area of the USA is arable land, and most likely not all of it is actually used as agricultural land, but I'm too lazy to dig up more stats, so let's assume it is. Now, even if your figure of 87% is accurate, and I highly doubt it is, that would mean only 16.6% of the USA was used to raise animals - far, far, FAR off the figure you give us.

But even if it were 45%, so what? There are only two distinct uses for land - agriculture and urban areas, and some areas aren't used at all. Of what land is being used, what isn't a city is agriculture. Of course agriculture would take up the great majority of the land. Put it in perspective.

Now, I won't deny that the environmental problems caused by raising of livestock are serious. I'm as disgusted as you are by the giant pools of pig shit that mass meat production necessitates. But if a car factory is giving out sulpur dioxide, you don't ban people from buying the car. You go after the owner of the factory and make him put in catalytic filters to stop SO2 from being emitted. Same logic here. You don't stop poor agricultural practices by banning meat. You stop them by going after the people and companies who are actually doing the damage.

And it's not as if vegetables are free of problems either, like genetically-modified crops and pesticides, just to name a couple. But hey, none of that matters, you know. Even if I completely agreed with you... let's go back to the beginning, eh?

I'm opposed, and number one reason - this proposal would trample viciously on personal choice.

ooc: Gimmick?

ic: Firstly, Sirloinia scoffs with contempt at the Act. If the United States (which US is it by the way? There are hundreds of U.S.'s in the NationStates) really has such a problem, let them deliver this resolution, not the people of Guang Ming! The Ambassador needs to explain why the actions of the United States bother his country so much!

Sirloinia would like to know if this is a serious resolution for consideration of the NSUN?

1. Agriculture is included in Clean Water Act (USA:1972) and Hazardous Waste Act.
2. Livestock Raising is limited only for scientific research, laboratory & medical usage.
3. Animal-derivated-food from remaining of livestock raising
activity is object to 1000% Environment Tax and 500% Luxury Goods Tax.
4. Explosive usage in Fishing is banned. Amount and area of fishing would be regulated by Departement of Environmental Protection.
5. Animal-derivated-food consumption per capita should not exceed 1% of the annualy diet.

Breaching of above mentioned regulations should be penalized with maximum of 1 Million USD equivalent for private person and maximum of 1 Billion USD equivalent for
corporations, partnerships or sole propietorships

Sirloinia likes the part about dynamite fishing. lolz

As of 12 noon today, Pfiesteeria piscicida is Sirloinia's national animal, so of course we will oppose any moves to damage its natural habits.

Sirloinia declares nutrition to be a medical use for the purposes of this act, but fails to see how you can be so rabidly FOR vegetarianism yet at the same time explicitly permit testing on animals at the same time. Also, fish have feelings too, but no regulation is proposed. Sirloinia does not even have a Department of Environmental Protection. While there is probably a case for UN involvement in the regulation of fishing, to leave the regulation to member states would acheive nothing.

The taxes are equally dumb. Why the seperate Luxury and Environmental Taxes? Why not a single tax? Also: this tax would harm the poor more than the wealthy. Indeed, the act if carried out will mean that only the wealthy will eat meat. Where is the social justice in that?

Finally, the fines for breaches. Leaving aside the possibility of government run agriculture, the fines seem arbitrarily high. Of course, if you create a massive black market you need such incentives. But if the 1500% tax is placed on meat the black market will easily take off, especially if the Government is willing to turn a blind eye, (as the Government of Sirloinia will).

Finally, on the 1% of annual diet: is this per person or world wide? Is this by mass or by nutritional requirement?

Sirloinia rejects utterly the baseless arguments in favour of vegetarianism. It is a scientific fact that certain cultures eat meat exclusively, and that this has had positive health effects. SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Scientific Fact 1: Meat is good
Scientific Fact 2: The human digestive system is designed to digest meat
Scientific Fact 3: Man can live on meat alone. (ooc: like the inuit)
Scientific Fact 4: Vegetarians get all sorts of messed up nutritional diseases that nobody else gets

Furthermore, in our religion, the eating of meat takes a special place.

I am not in support of this resolution, as I don't think it belongs in the UN. However, I feel the need to address some of the more spurious claims made by some esteemed delegates.

I thought the low carb diets were the in thing right now.

Being the "in" thing is hardly synonymous with healthiness. Many scientific studies indicate that the current low-carb diet craze is very detrimental to humyn health.

Proper cooking techinques will kill any harmful organisms found in meats.

Absolutely false. The prions that are responsible for mad-cow disease cannot be destroyed even by incinerating the meat.

More claims have been made here that need addressing, so I beg your forbearance in posting twice regarding this.

Scientific Fact 1: Meat is good

There is no context for this statement. Presumably you mean good for humyns to eat? While it may taste good, the deleterious effects of meat in terms of cholesterol (which is ONLY present in animals) levels, toxin concentrations and digestive disorders are well-documented.

Scientific Fact 2: The human digestive system is designed to digest meat

Misleading. There is a form of "meat" that we are designed to digest, and that is insects. Our digestive tract is not at all suited to digesting beef, chicken, pork, etc. The trophic level of animals is much higher, and hence contains higher concentrations of toxins in the environment. Animals that are adapted to eating meat have much shorter digestive tracts and hence can process the meat without absorbing many of the toxins. Our tract is very, very long which means that while we can break down much of the meat, we absorb a very, very large amount of the toxins. And that doesn't even touch the surface on issues like colon cancer and other fairly common ailments that studies show vegetarianism and veganism have extremely reduced rates regarding.

Scientific Fact 3: Man can live on meat alone. (ooc: like the inuit)

The Inuits did have a diet that was predominantly meat, but it wasn't only meat. Additionally, eating meat the way it is eaten throughout the world would result in everyone getting scurvy if they tried to eat solely meat, as cooking the meat destroys the vitamin C present. Again, this is a misleading claim.

Scientific Fact 4: Vegetarians get all sorts of messed up nutritional diseases that nobody else gets

Many vegetarians are unhealthy because they substitute milk, cheese and other high protein, high fat animal byproducts for their meats. This is extremely detrimental for humyn health. However, a diet that eliminates those animal byproducts as well avoids that. You can be unhealthy with any diet at all...it depends on what kinds of foods you eat (for instance, a vegan could eat only chips and salsa and would be extremely unhealthy...that doesn't mean veganism is unhealthy). As for "all sorts", what nutritional diseases are you referring to?

Absolutely false. The prions that are responsible for mad-cow disease cannot be destroyed even by incinerating the meat.

But technically a prion is not an "organism." Technially a prion is "a protein particle that lacks nucleic acid and is believed to be the cause of various infectious diseases of the nervous system (as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)." So the statement is true as writen. The fact that there are other thing to worry about other than "harmful organisms" in foods, there are poisonous compounds, dangerous accumulating substances and prion / protein / DNA contamination issues. There are some people, for example, who will die if given a quantity of peanuts, a vegitarian product by the way.

As for "all sorts", what nutritional diseases are you referring to?

I was referring to the fact that vegetarians, by limiting their diet to a small subset of avalible foods, face greater difficulties in the event of developing an allergy: take a vegetarian with a gluten allergy, for example. Big problem, as wheat products are so pervasive.

:D All scientific facts. There isn't any evidence for it, but its a scientific fact. :p

EDIT: Can't believe people are taking my absolutely 100% true "Scientific Facts" so seriously.

oh and on the psychological \/\/\/\/\/\/
I think you are confusing the role of the government and the role of a mom!

It is very interesting to observe the reactions of some people here. ( Pardon me for dropping the Role Playing
attitude) Here and there the oppositions arise against this proposal. The messages sound like back in our childhood, when our moms restrict us from neglecting fruit and vegetables in favour of meats, sweets, and dairy product (like ice cream ;)). It seems a cryout of the unconcious fear of being forced to eat vegetables. "Don't take away my turkey !" :D or "Don't take away my ice cream!" :D

There isn't any evidence for it, but its a scientific fact.


lol

All scientific facts. There isn't any evidence for it, but its a scientific fact.

:eek: Scientific facts without evidence ?
Common, no offense, what the heck are you thinking that in this world there is scientific facts without evidence?
You can call it hypothesis, but that's it. It is not a scientific fact. If your hypothesis proven true (so there is evidence)
it can be called theory.

To Nansha :
The pyschological aspect of this debate is interesting indeed :D I can imagine those screaming kids who wants to go to McDonalds whatever it takes, dragging their ashamed and outraged parents :D

ooc: Gimmick?

ic: Firstly, Sirloinia scoffs with contempt at the Act. If the United States (which US is it by the way? There are hundreds of U.S.'s in the NationStates) really has such a problem, let them deliver this resolution, not the people of Guang Ming! The Ambassador needs to explain why the actions of the United States bother his country so much!


Greetings to the highly esteemed leader of Sirlonia.
To statisfy your questions, we feel obliged to provide
sufficient answers:
1. If you read carefully, the excerpt did mentioned the United States of America (in real life)
2. The people of Guang Ming has nothing against the United States of America. The original manuscript can be found in this following website :

http://www.pleasebekind.com/enviro.html

It is an American website, from a organization called Compassionate Action Institute founded by a New Yorker.
3. The excerpt is used for an example, not to accuse or
discredit United States of America. Our goal is to achieve a better environment. It is a global cause, that is why this
topic is relevant for the United Nations

:oh and on the psychological \/\/\/\/\/\/
I think you are confusing the role of the government and the role of a mom!

Even leaders have moms too and they are also human.
People running a government have feelings too.
So their preference and their subconcious minds influence
their policy greatly. By the way Mom is the queen of the smallest form of government : the family :D

2. Livestock Raising is limited only for scientific research, laboratory & medical usage.


You don't think that raising animals to torture them in a lab is somewhat cruel?


And in general - no. For a number of reasons

1) I don't have a Clean Water Act, and I am not creating one just to put agriculture in to it.
2) As I said - there is a lot to be said against raising creatures to torture them in a lab.
3) You are not setting my tax levels. I don't care how good your motives are.
4) I dont' have a department of.... well you get the idea.
5) Why should I limit what animals can eat? None of my people are starving and the food would just go to waste. Plus what if I have a LOT of animals (which, being a mostly rural country, is not beyond reason)

So all in all I think I would oppose this if it came up.

Personal Health Advantage of being Vegetarian :
1 - 28



This may all be true. It may all be propaganda. But given that every single person in my nation is capable of making up their own minds about facts, do you not think it would just be a tad dictatorial for me to support a proposal that would tell every single one of them what they can and cannot eat?

It is very interesting to observe the reactions of some people here. ( Pardon me for dropping the Role Playing
attitude) Here and there the oppositions arise against this proposal. The messages sound like back in our childhood, when our moms restrict us from neglecting fruit and vegetables in favour of meats, sweets, and dairy product (like ice cream ;)). It seems a cryout of the unconcious fear of being forced to eat vegetables. "Don't take away my turkey !" :D or "Don't take away my ice cream!" :DPersonally, I find it most entertaining that those that favor this proposal would rather debate the health benefits of meat and the humor in some of the replies than any of the many good points raised by those who disagree with them.

Since those who favor this proposal seem to be ignoring all of the real arguments made against it, I'll recap them in one place for your convenience:

-National Sovereignty. Do the benefits of this proposal outweigh the extraordinary step of enforcing dietary restrictions of the entire world? That's a matter of opinion, but I've seen no real arguments for the proposal that keep this issue in mind.
-Land Use. All land being used for livestock could not be converted for crops. Many nations would not have enough farming land and would be forced to import more food at great expense.
-Economic Effects. Importing the required amount of edible plants may cripple the economies of any country that can't grow all of its own food. This would especially be a problem in smaller, poorer countries. Those of us who can't afford all those new imports would be facing mass malnutrition and possibly starvation.
-Health. Vegetarianism may be healthy for some people. But it could have serious negative consequences on those with certain types of food allergies. It's also not healthy unless each individual eats a good variety of non-animal foods. Educating the people of the world of how to eat healthy with no meat would be very expensive, and even then there's no guarantee that people who are used to relying on meat for protein will be able to adjust their diets properly enough to remain healthy.
-Affect on the poor. If meat were still allowable, just incredibly taxed, the rich would still eat meat occasionally, while the poor would never get it. Not everyone has a problem with this, but it's still something for those who are interested in economic fairness to consider.
-Crime. This resolution would create a huge meat black market. Fighting the meat mafia that will spring up will be hard on any nation's police force, and distract them from real crimes.

And a few others that I just thought of:

-Family Farms. This resolution would decimate many traditional family farms. There are still plenty of farmers in the world that raise livestock in order to feed themselves and sell to their neighbors. This resolution may destroy a way of life that has existed for much longer than the UN.
-Costs of shutting down meat industries. Owners of meat-product businesses will have their companies ruined overnight, and be completely deprived of their livelihood. Many of these are small family businesses that have been in operation for generations. All workers in the meat and meat packing industries will now be out of a job. These people will need expensive retraining, and there's no guarantee that other industries will be able to absorb these workers (especially in smaller countries).
-Harming Tourism. Many meat lovers will simply choose to vacation in non-UN countries where meat is still obtainable. This will harm the tourist industries of all UN nations, which is upsetting for those of us who rely on it.
-National and Cultural Tradition. Many nations have holidays or festivals that are traditionally associated with meat. In the Queendom of the Zombie Overlords, the highlight of our annual Day of the Undead holiday is a bacon and chicken feast. We also have many smaller cultural groups that have their own traditional meat dishes that they prepare for certain occasions. For example, no gourmet should consider themselves cultured until they've had a sample of our Ichi Bichi tribe's famous last-Friday-of-the-month dish, Red Beans and Mice.
-Religious Issues. Some religions involve eating meat for ceremonial purposes. These people would effectively no longer be able to practice their religion.
-Bureaucratic Changes. This resolution would require a large change in the administrations of all UN nations. We would need to completely revamp our agricultural and health deparments. We would have to create some kind of enforcement body to keep our people from livestock raising or meat smuggling in secret. This may create jobs for our displaced meat inspectors, but would require a large amount of retraining. Again, these changes would cause economic hardship, especially on smaller nations.

Please address these very real issues instead of just complaining about the comedy RP of the proposal's opponents.

Hint: "Vegetarianism is very healthy!" and "Raising animals is bad for the environment!" are not valid arguments against any of these points.

Greetings to the highly esteemed leader of Sirlonia.
It is an American website, from a organization called Compassionate Action Institute founded by a New Yorker.

in character: Sirloinia wishes to ensure its position is known. This fictitious United States of America is not recorded on any of the rolls of the United Nations. Since the USA is not a member of the United Nations, or even a proper country (correct me if I am wrong) any resolution this body enacts will do nothing to correct the evils the original post alleged.

ooc: Unless a moderator wishes to contradict me, this is my understanding of the game rules. Basically, the USA does not exist for the purposes of the NationStates considered as a game. While, I admit that you can thus use the statistics used as an example of abuses of livestock production when used in a RP context within the game, the state of USA in the real world cannot have any bearing on our debates. Only in a general sense can we refer to real world issues. Take nuclear terrorism: that is a realistic threat within the context of the game. But statistics on US agriculture cannot be recognised as relevent by the NS UN, which, due to role playing protocols must remain a fictional self contained universe.

back in character: Sirloinia suggests that the sponsors of this resolution rephrase it in terms more appropriate to this august body. This fictitious "United States" has no relevence to our discussions.

If you wish to promote Vegetarianism as a health issue, I suggest you either rephrase the existing resolution in a more general sense, by removing all specific US agriculture statistics, and replacing it with more general statements of the effects of livestock farming.

e.g.

WHEREAS livestock farming messes up the environment by doing etc (insert environmental damage as appropriate, with an extra preambulatory clause as appropriate)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
URGES that member states etc. (insert substantive sections of the motion)

Alternatively, rephrase the resolution as a "Moral Decency" resolution restricting civil liberties in the name of moral decency.

OOC: DISCLAIMER: If a moderator wishes to add something, then his word is final. Any interpretation of the rules of this game is my own.

P.S. I would still probably oppose the resolution, but at least the resolution proposed would be internally consistent in terms of the game.

ooc: Unless a moderator wishes to contradict me, this is my understanding of the game rules. Basically, the USA does not exist for the purposes of the NationStates considered as a game. While, I admit that you can thus use the statistics used as an example of abuses of livestock production when used in a RP context within the game, the state of USA in the real world cannot have any bearing on our debates. Only in a general sense can we refer to real world issues. Take nuclear terrorism: that is a realistic threat within the context of the game. But statistics on US agriculture cannot be recognised as relevent by the NS UN, which, due to role playing protocols must remain a fictional self contained universe.

back in character: Sirloinia suggests that the sponsors of this resolution rephrase it in terms more appropriate to this august body. This fictitious "United States" has no relevence to our discussions.

If you wish to promote Vegetarianism as a health issue, I suggest you either rephrase the existing resolution in a more general sense, by removing all specific US agriculture statistics, and replacing it with more general statements of the effects of livestock farming.

e.g.

WHEREAS livestock farming messes up the environment by doing etc (insert environmental damage as appropriate, with an extra preambulatory clause as appropriate)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
URGES that member states etc. (insert substantive sections of the motion)

Alternatively, rephrase the resolution as a "Moral Decency" resolution restricting civil liberties in the name of moral decency.

OOC: DISCLAIMER: If a moderator wishes to add something, then his word is final. Any interpretation of the rules of this game is my own.

.

Thank you for your suggestions. What is the meaning of OOC?

OOC = Out of character.
IC =In character

THe labels are used to distinguish what's being said by the player, and what's being said by the character. They're only neccesary when IC and OOC comments are in the same post.