NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think?


The Stralsund Convention on Biotechnology

WHEREAS:

Cloning, a process that exists in nature in the form of identical twins is suddenly linked with reactionary fears of degrading respect for human individuality and violations of human rights, when humans discover that technology.

Yet how would one’s rights to her/his individuality best be served? By allowing the individual to decide whether or not she or he would like to be cloned? Or by passing on the responsibility for that decision to a state?

The right to decide whether or not you would be cloned is linked to that of the ownership of the individual over his or her own genetic code. Western societies are rushing towards a situation where those rights are massively being given up by the ‘moral majorities’ in those societies, to the state.

Note that the right not to be cloned is also among those rights.

Since future visions of a society with abominable human rights, are being also (over)used against cloning, let us present an alternative scenario.

When a theoretical human right for individuality, becomes a human duty for individuality, you can ask yourself this question: ‘What sort of a state would possibly seek benefit from the absolute need to identify individuals by their genetic codes?’

This is the kind of state that will violate your human rights.

This Convention defends the rights of the individual to ownership of, and therefore the (still theoretical) right to alter her or his genome, and more general his or her physical architecture.

People who push for laws against genetic modification technology do not realize they are interfering with those rights.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS HONORABLE UNITED NATIONS THAT:

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.

II. All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished.

III. Individual governments shall reserve the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own nation, though scientists shall have the right to leave at any time they wish, except in cases of criminal activity, war, or imminent public danger.

IV. No nation nor the United Nations shall restrict the free flow of scientific information of a civilian nature, so long as such flow does not violate standing property rights.

What does everyone think?


The Stralsund Convention on Biotechnology

WHEREAS:

Cloning, a process that exists in nature in the form of identical twins is suddenly linked with reactionary fears of degrading respect for human individuality and violations of human rights, when humans discover that technology.

Yet how would one’s rights to her/his individuality best be served? By allowing the individual to decide whether or not she or he would like to be cloned? Or by passing on the responsibility for that decision to a state?

The right to decide whether or not you would be cloned is linked to that of the ownership of the individual over his or her own genetic code. Western societies are rushing towards a situation where those rights are massively being given up by the ‘moral majorities’ in those societies, to the state.

Note that the right not to be cloned is also among those rights.

Since future visions of a society with abominable human rights, are being also (over)used against cloning, let us present an alternative scenario.

When a theoretical human right for individuality, becomes a human duty for individuality, you can ask yourself this question: ‘What sort of a state would possibly seek benefit from the absolute need to identify individuals by their genetic codes?’

This is the kind of state that will violate your human rights.

The members of the Stralsund Convention defend the rights of the individual to ownership of, and therefore the (still theoretical) right to alter her or his genome, and more general his or her physical architecture.

People who push for laws against genetic modification technology do not realize they are interfering with those rights.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THIS HONORABLE UNITED NATIONS THAT:

Reaffirming our dedication to science and progress, the United Nations shall ratify the acts passed by the scientists of the Stralsund Convention:

- The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.
- All international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature are hereby abolished.
- Individual nations shall reserve the right to restrict the research of biotechnology within their own borders, though scientists not currently employed by the government shall have the right to leave at any time they wish.
All tariffs on scientific equipment shall be reduced by no less than fifty percent.


Aw alright. I agree. I'll try the intellectual rights thing later on. I'll go ask people to vote for this.

Im not proposing it until Monday maybe Tuesday

Im not proposing it until Monday maybe Tuesday

Well when you do I'll ask, naturally. But I agree with biotech research of course.

Me too. Hence teh resolution.

My gut reaction is to say no, but it COULD be considered an infringment of human rights not to let people be cloned, or not to let them be genetically modified. It's not an issue that humans have had to deal with in the past, so I think the public is still undecided on the issue.

Think about it, the technology to clone someone is quite undeveloped, at least not in real life. But we're going to assume NationStates world is as technologically advanced as us. Anyone can say 'We have the technology to clone!' or 'We have the technology to travel through time!' and not have a clue as to how that technology works. Anyway, allowing people to be cloned now is a bad idea. Clones now have a very low life expectancy and develop health problems quickly in that short time. This has happened with everything we've cloned so far. We haven't cloned a human yet, but to say that the same results wouldn't occur is probably poor foresight.

Let's think about the CLONES human rights. The clone will still be just as human as you or I. Is it 'right' to have complete control over bringing someone into that kind of life? You know people are probably trying to do just this in secret as we speak (in game, probably in real life too). Do we want to aid that kind of practice in coming out into the open? Do we want to allow people to bring into this world clones that are doomed to die young? What happens if the clones do live longer, but are still weakened by disorders and diseases. What do we say when they start to complain about infringments of their human rights? You could argue that they weren't human when we made the decision to bring them into the world, but it could be argued that you KNEW what would happen ahead of time and that it would be sufficent evidence that it's a human rights abuse.

A better counterargument popped into my head just now. You claim that the ability to clone myself would fall under individual rights. But that clone is NOT you, even if it's a clone of you. The first sign that it's not you will be that it is a baby and you are fully grown. The next sign that it's not you is that it will NOT have the same upbringing as you and therefore will not develop the same way mentally, and will have a different personality. It will be a completely different person, mentally. Yet another difference is that, at least now, it will develop above stated complications. You're saying that this falls under my rights? It's my right to put someone else with my genetic code through this? Does it sound like my main counterpoint is 'Think of the complications due to undeveloped technology'? More or less, yes. But let's assume we did have the technology to pull off a flawless cloning. Would this be the same as having a child? Or is it a totally different situation? Should a personal right have an effect on another persons very EXISTANCE? Or is it the same as having a child naturally? Not really, because it's a clone of you. But it won't develop mentally the same as you.

You can probably find someone that has passionate opinions about either side of the argument. I'm still undecided myself. Both sides have their merit. As I said before, the public hasn't really made a firm opinion on this yet. THe public generally has no idea how cloning works so they can form an opinion. I'm not even going to get into the specifics of this. I have NO idea how that work.

I could bring up the social aspect of genetic alteration, but that's been hashed and rehashed numerous times. I'll let someone else cover that. I know SOMEONE will.

I'm just trying to show that your snide remarks that imply that people who try to resist this proposal are against individual rights might not be taking into account the other sides arguments. This isn't to say I take sides, I'm just saying that an equally reasonable counterpoint exists.

I'm aware that cloning RIGHT NOW isn't gonna work, but this is why we should DEVELOP the technology further. Then we can think about things like the rights of the clones, etc.

The alter part is why I shall not endorse it, and shall vote against it if it comes up.

Also I shall not support it as it implies that clones, upon coming into sentinance, are not human.

Clones should be given eaqual rights with all sentinents.

As to the: "The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it" section of the bill. We, the people of TedHughes move that a section be added to the effect:

"under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

The alter part is why I shall not endorse it, and shall vote against it if it comes up.

Also I shall not support it as it implies that clones, upon coming into sentinance, are not human.

Clones should be given eaqual rights with all sentinents.

Where does it imply that clones aren't human? I'll add a provision to the effect that a clone will have equal rights as other humans.

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.

Edit: forgot to add emphasis

The alter part is why I shall not endorse it, and shall vote against it if it comes up.

Also I shall not support it as it implies that clones, upon coming into sentinance, are not human.

Clones should be given eaqual rights with all sentinents.

Where does it imply that clones aren't human? I'll add a provision to the effect that a clone will have equal rights as other humans.

I didn't see that either. A provision would be nice though.

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.


Ah, I didn't notice that. Indeed, there is an implication here that the genome is owned by the individual even after the point that genome becomes another human being.

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.


Ah, I didn't notice that. Indeed, there is an implication here that the genome is owned by the individual even after the point that genome becomes another human being.

If the genome becomes anoter human being than that genome becomes his... this will work just like identical twins work.

I'm adding this provision:

"V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights as humans born naturally, and that custody shall be determined by common law."

How's that?

I. The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it.


Ah, I didn't notice that. Indeed, there is an implication here that the genome is owned by the individual even after the point that genome becomes another human being.

If the genome becomes anoter human being than that genome becomes his... this will work just like identical twins work.

I'm adding this provision:

"V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights as humans born naturally, and that custody shall be determined by common law."

How's that?

Yip. I'm sure someone will find holes in that too, but it works for me.

You adding ""under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

or something similar?

Yip. I'm sure someone will find holes in that too, but it works for me.

You adding ""under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

or something similar?

Why would this be necessary? I mean how could you 'accidnetally' alter someone else's genome?

If you give me a plausible scenario, I'll add it, but otherwise....

The only known way of changing your DNA now is through the use of a plasmid or a retrovirus which are both injected into your bloodstream... the only possible way that you could accidentally alter someone else's genome is if you accidnetally inject them...

Yip. I'm sure someone will find holes in that too, but it works for me.

You adding ""under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

or something similar?

Why would this be necessary? I mean how could you 'accidnetally' alter someone else's genome?

If you give me a plausible scenario, I'll add it, but otherwise....

I mean, like if the alteration of the genome could lead to a disease which genetically affected others. This should probably be taken further, but I'm too tired to think about it much at the moment.

Yip. I'm sure someone will find holes in that too, but it works for me.

You adding ""under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

or something similar?

Why would this be necessary? I mean how could you 'accidnetally' alter someone else's genome?

If you give me a plausible scenario, I'll add it, but otherwise....

I mean, like if the alteration of the genome could lead to a disease which genetically affected others. This should probably be taken further, but I'm too tired to think about it much at the moment.

That's a pretty far-fetched scenario no offense....

I'm aware that cloning RIGHT NOW isn't gonna work, but this is why we should DEVELOP the technology further. Then we can think about things like the rights of the clones, etc.

Are you sure we shouldn't plan ahead? Not making decisions on issues we know will arise untill they arise is historically a bad situation.

As to the: "The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it" section of the bill. We, the people of TedHughes move that a section be added to the effect

Technically, it's possible for two people from different blood lines to be born with the exact same genome. The odds are tremendously against it, but it's possible. But assuming it happens, who owns that genome then?

On that note, you say in the proposal that "The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it." Since the clone will have an identical genome, does that mean the clone doesn't own it since the origional had it first? They can't both own it. What if one doesn't like what the other does with it? Technically they'd both have 100% say in what to do with it, but they might have two different ideas about that they each want to do with it. If the origional is the only owner of the genome, does that mean he owns the clone too?

Yip. I'm sure someone will find holes in that too, but it works for me.

You adding ""under circumstances where it is agreed by a UN resolution that the duplication or alteration of said genome could not, in all probability, lead to the accidental alteration of another individual's genome, over which said individual has the right of 'ownership'"

or something similar?

Why would this be necessary? I mean how could you 'accidnetally' alter someone else's genome?

If you give me a plausible scenario, I'll add it, but otherwise....

I mean, like if the alteration of the genome could lead to a disease which genetically affected others. This should probably be taken further, but I'm too tired to think about it much at the moment.

That's a pretty far-fetched scenario no offense....

I don't know much about the science of cloaning, but I can see how alteration of genes could lead to genetic diseases, potentially impinging on the rights of others.

Very yes.

Very, very yes.

Contents: Official Outsider Communication

###########Begin###############

Greetings to all Outsiders:

This great nation, brought forth by the Great One to enlighten human beings from their weaknesses, The Theocracy of Hewhocaresnot, supports this proposal. We have already put laws into the effect of this proposal many years ago.

The Council of Health & Spiritality within our Ministry of Public Welfare and The Church of Hewhocaresnot, has determined that the soul belongs to our etherical god Hewhocaresnot. The body however, as determined by the aforementioned Ministries belongs to the State of the Theocracy of Hewhocaresnot.

The State is very strict in its ownership of these many bodies. It does not allow any genetic modifications, physical medical treatment, or psycholocial modifications of any kind without the owner of the body's consent. To date, the Ministry of Information has no reported instances of any kind of genetic, or cloning research within our borders. The Ministry of Public Welfare will continue to report no research to the Ministry of Information. This has been ordered by our highest council, the Grand Bishop.

Due to the fact that the Ministry of Public Welfare is forbidden to dwelve into the realm of genetic research, we are sad to say that we are having some difficulties. A strain of "flu" has crippled a secluded sparcely populated area of our country. The reports to the Ministry of Information & the Ministry of Public Welfare, came from our Ministry of Defense just after a regulary scheduled military exercise. We have patients with severe fatigue, sensetivity to sunlight, loss of body hair, and extremely sensitive areas of skin.

We would request assistance from the World Health Organization in the form of medical equipment to treat this "flu". We will not be able to accept your so called advisers into our borders, because of certain past instances with spies trying to turn the good people of ours against their manifest destiny government.

Respectfully yours by the Great Church of Hewhocaresnot,

Cardinal Nathaniel West
Ministry of Outsider Relations

##############End#######################

This communication has been approved by the Internal Political Ministry of the Church of Hewhocaresnot, & the Office of Grand Bishop Drahcir Rekcaw.

As stated elsewhere, we in Gurthark are a bit uncomfortable about any resolution that promotes genertic modification but does not contain specific provisions to prevent modified organisms from going wild and competing with or contaminating naturally existing forms.

However, since this is a more serious concern with plant or animal modification, and since this law is primarily addressed towards human modification (which we support--as an option, of course--in the interest of civil liberties), we will overlook our reservations (now that we have registered them) and support this proposal. I have gone over this proposal with our Minister of Science and Nature, Dr. Frogbottom Jefferson, and we are satisfied that the increase in danger to the environment it creates is slight.

We may propose a resolution to protect the environment at some point in the future.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

OOC: Posted in the other thread, sorry for the double post.

We believe that any resolution supporting cloning would be in violation of existing UN resolutions - the resolution to end slavery for instance, says that a human being cannot be treated like property, and yet, if we create a human clone, we are creating them for a specific purpose like they were any other piece of property which existed to serve our needs. Human beings should not be reduced to experiments, or pieces of property to be manipulated and tailored to our specific needs, and even if full human rights were extended to clones once they were born, the process of their creation itself would be an intolerable assault on human dignity.

As Hans Jonas observes: "both in method the most despotic and in aim the most slavish form of genetic manipulation; its objective is not an arbitrary modification of the hereditary material but precisely its equally arbitrary fixation in contrast to the dominant strategy of nature"

Further:
The idea is fostered that some individuals can have total dominion over the existence of others, to the point of programming their biological identity—selected according to arbitrary or purely utilitarian criteria—which, although not exhausting man's personal identity, which is characterized by the spirit, is a constitutive part of it. This selective concept of man will have, among other things, a heavy cultural fallout beyond the—numerically limited—practice of cloning, since there will be a growing conviction that the value of man and woman does not depend on their personal identity but only on those biological qualities that can be appraised and therefore selected.
(source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_30091997_clon_en.html)

This is not something which the UN should or could endorse - it has already guaranteed that human beings have the right to not be treated as property. It cannot endorse a practice which reduces them to pieces of genetic cloth to be tailored to fit. It cannot, it should not, and it must not.

Pantocratoria: As the proposal mentions, many people have confused old ethical issues with new ones related to cloning.

No, you cannot ethically clone yourself to create a slave. This has nothing to do with the ethics of cloning; it's a side effect of the fact that you can't ethically have slaves.

No, you cannot (ethically) harvest organs from your clone against their will. This is a side effect of the fact that you cannot harvest organs from your children against their will, and again, has nothing to do with cloning in particular.

This proposal specifically affirms that clones (of human beings) are human beings themselves and due all rights that appertain thereto. We in Gurthark believe that this is an adequate safeguard against the scenario you invoke.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

As to the: "The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it" section of the bill. We, the people of TedHughes move that a section be added to the effect

Technically, it's possible for two people from different blood lines to be born with the exact same genome. The odds are tremendously against it, but it's possible. But assuming it happens, who owns that genome then?

On that note, you say in the proposal that "The United Nations shall issue a statement defending the ownership of the individual over his or her genome, and therefore the theoretical right to duplicate and/or alter it." Since the clone will have an identical genome, does that mean the clone doesn't own it since the origional had it first? They can't both own it. What if one doesn't like what the other does with it? Technically they'd both have 100% say in what to do with it, but they might have two different ideas about that they each want to do with it. If the origional is the only owner of the genome, does that mean he owns the clone too?

They CAN both own the genome. It's like IDENTICAL TWINS.

I don't know much about the science of cloaning, but I can see how alteration of genes could lead to genetic diseases, potentially impinging on the rights of others.

This is like if the Wright Brothers were to say "Let's not invent the airplane because a hundred years from now some crazed fundamentalists might crash two of them into the World Trade Center."

Pantocratoria: As the proposal mentions, many people have confused old ethical issues with new ones related to cloning.

No, you cannot ethically clone yourself to create a slave. This has nothing to do with the ethics of cloning; it's a side effect of the fact that you can't ethically have slaves.

No, you cannot (ethically) harvest organs from your clone against their will. This is a side effect of the fact that you cannot harvest organs from your children against their will, and again, has nothing to do with cloning in particular.

This proposal specifically affirms that clones (of human beings) are human beings themselves and due all rights that appertain thereto. We in Gurthark believe that this is an adequate safeguard against the scenario you invoke.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Actually, and with all due respect, Ms Googleplex, you are missing my point. We in Pantocratoria are satisfied that any cloned individuals will be extended all due rights and will not be treated as slave. But the very act of creating another human being for whatever reason demeans that human being - the human being is being created, tailor-made, just like a piece of property. The "tailor-made creation" of a human being is an assault on the person's human dignity even if that person is free once born.

Sir John Valois, Knight of the Order of the Pantocrator
United Nations Ambassador
Holy Empire of Pantocratoria

BUMP

Personaly, I've been wondering why someone would want to clone themselves in the first place. Exactly what benefits would there by for taking the action to clone yourself? :?

Personaly, I've been wondering why someone would want to clone themselves in the first place. Exactly what benefits would there by for taking the action to clone yourself? :?

Lots. If you're sterile and can't reproduce, you might want a kid.

This bill also deals with genetic modification.

In either case, whether or not you would WANT to clone yourself is irrelevant... you still possess this right.

Personaly, I've been wondering why someone would want to clone themselves in the first place. Exactly what benefits would there by for taking the action to clone yourself? :?

Lots. If you're sterile and can't reproduce, you might want a kid.

This bill also deals with genetic modification.

In either case, whether or not you would WANT to clone yourself is irrelevant... you still possess this right.

We agree. It seems that the rights to buy, sell, or bequeath spermazoa and eggs already exist in most nations. Cloning seems a natural extension rights already recognized. We would ask, however, that the right to alter one's genetic code be removed from the language of this proposal and moved for discussion to a later date, when more information on the consequences of such alterations is available.

Personaly, I've been wondering why someone would want to clone themselves in the first place. Exactly what benefits would there by for taking the action to clone yourself? :?

Lots. If you're sterile and can't reproduce, you might want a kid.

This bill also deals with genetic modification.

In either case, whether or not you would WANT to clone yourself is irrelevant... you still possess this right.

A human produced by cloning vs. a human produced by other means is still a human. People assume that a cloned human will be an exact copy of the human it was cloned from.

It can't be. That's impossible. The *ONLY* way a cloned human can be an exact copy of the human it was cloned from is to synthesize exactly the host human's background, lifestyle, upbringing, etc. And that is impossible. Also, even the in womb, the cloned human may become significantly different from its host -- it may develop into a female, for example, if the host is male. It may develop some kind of handicap, or deformity. It may develop physiologically different -- it may be taller, or shorter, or skinnier, or fatter. Just because the DNA is similar, doesn't mean that the person is an exact copy. Are you an exact copy of your parents? Your DNA is similar. Are you an exact copy of your brothers or sisters? Your DNA is similar.

People act like cloned humans are not human. That is wrong. They are 100% human -- they think, they eat, they feel, they laugh, they fear, they go to the bathroom, they dream, etc. Therefore, they should be afforded every single right that a naturally-created human has.

Therefore, the Disputed Territories of Baconasia supports this proposal by the The Global Market.

Actually, and with all due respect, Ms Googleplex, you are missing my point. We in Pantocratoria are satisfied that any cloned individuals will be extended all due rights and will not be treated as slave. But the very act of creating another human being for whatever reason demeans that human being - the human being is being created, tailor-made, just like a piece of property. The "tailor-made creation" of a human being is an assault on the person's human dignity even if that person is free once born.


Sir John,

We in Gurthark are uninclined to treat "dignity" as such an abstract concept--a person's level of dignity is determined by how they are treated, not some decisions of supposedly spritual significance surrounding their creation.

In addition, it is worth noting that people already do an extensive amount to attempt to control the attributes of their children: From selecting a mate in part for their imagined attributes as a parent, to modifying diet during pregnancy, to educating their children with their own beliefs and values.

It's far from clear that the cumulative effects of genetic engineering will be much more powerful than the effects parents already create through natural-genetic and environmental means. In fact, if we in Gurthark have a worry about genetic engineering, it is that it may be oversold: that it will cause parents to *expect* to be able to tailor-make their children, which will worsen intergenerational relationships when the parents are inevitably disappointed.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Protectorate of Grotia has given great thought to this matter, and currently is torn. While we are are embarking on a SLOW introduction of democratic rights to its people, who might wish not to have the government have their DNA on file, the original proposal stated this:

***
When a theoretical human right for individuality, becomes a human duty for individuality, you can ask yourself this question: ‘What sort of a state would possibly seek benefit from the absolute need to identify individuals by their genetic codes?’

This is the kind of state that will violate your human rights.
***

We respond to the first question: security. With a national DNA database, we know who is doing the crime simply from forensic science. Therefore, the guilty party is convicted, not the innocent, and our people can know that the criminals are off our street and down in our uranium mines with shovels, where they belong, getting re-education.

Violate human rights? We are PROTECTING innocent citizens and PUNISHING the guilty. We considering peace, order and a protective government to be the most important rights a human can have.

Therefore, we must decline in offering our support to you.

Peace be with you.

ICH DIEN!!!

Hobnail Boots
Ministry of Public Security and Correction
Protectorate of Grotia

I promised myself after "The Socializm Acts" and "The Right to Enslave" that I would never again endorse a proposal of TGM's and then here I find that I have endorsed another proposal by TGM.

*sigh*