NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the final resolution:


The GenetiCorp Convention
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: 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. Many 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. If two people both possess the same genome, they will both have the right to duplicate and/or alter theirs.

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 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.

V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights and as naturally born humans.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 2 2003

Cleary you have not seen Red Dwarf. Also stop trying to pass this crap as a free trade, if anything its human rights.

Still am I correct to assume that should an individual decide that they want to be cloned the state/whatever would be obliged to help them do this?

Cleary you have not seen Red Dwarf. Also stop trying to pass this crap as a free trade, if anything its human rights.

Still am I correct to assume that should an individual decide that they want to be cloned the state/whatever would be obliged to help them do this?

It is free trade, the reason being the free flow of information, the emigration and the property rights clauses.

Also previous science resolutions such as Scientific Freedom and Metric System have ALL been paseed as free trade acts.

And no on the second one. You have the right to be cloned, but you do not have the right to force someone else to pay for it. It's like this. You have the right to a gun. You do not have teh right to take one without paying for it.

Cleary you have not seen Red Dwarf. Also stop trying to pass this crap as a free trade, if anything its human rights.

Still am I correct to assume that should an individual decide that they want to be cloned the state/whatever would be obliged to help them do this?

It is free trade, the reason being the free flow of information and the property rights clauses.

Also previous science resolutions such as Scientific Freedom and Metric System have ALL been paseed as free trade acts.

And no on the second one. You have the right to be cloned, but you do not have the right to force someone else to pay for it. It's like this. You have the right to a gun. You do not have teh right to take one without paying for it.

So the only thing your proposal does is allow people to clone themselves using their own means to do so? seems pretty stupid doesn't it? Anyway "you have the right to be cloned" is clearly a human rights issue.

Cleary you have not seen Red Dwarf. Also stop trying to pass this crap as a free trade, if anything its human rights.

Still am I correct to assume that should an individual decide that they want to be cloned the state/whatever would be obliged to help them do this?

It is free trade, the reason being the free flow of information and the property rights clauses.

Also previous science resolutions such as Scientific Freedom and Metric System have ALL been paseed as free trade acts.

And no on the second one. You have the right to be cloned, but you do not have the right to force someone else to pay for it. It's like this. You have the right to a gun. You do not have teh right to take one without paying for it.

So the only thing your proposal does is allow people to clone themselves using their own means to do so? seems pretty stupid doesn't it? Anyway "you have the right to be cloned" is clearly a human rights issue.

This is about OWNERSHIP over your Genome. This is a free trade issue. EVERY other science resolution has been labelled as free trade.

And why is it stupid that you should only be cloned within your own means? Remember that as the technology develops the price will decrease (because supply increases) to the extent where almost everyone will be able to afford it.

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something, but for now free trade is the closest match.

Technology and diffusion go hand-in-hand.

I like this proposal :D , and would vote for it if it would be to get voted on by all the U.N. members.

Cleary you have not seen Red Dwarf. Also stop trying to pass this crap as a free trade, if anything its human rights.

Still am I correct to assume that should an individual decide that they want to be cloned the state/whatever would be obliged to help them do this?

It is free trade, the reason being the free flow of information and the property rights clauses.

Also previous science resolutions such as Scientific Freedom and Metric System have ALL been paseed as free trade acts.

And no on the second one. You have the right to be cloned, but you do not have the right to force someone else to pay for it. It's like this. You have the right to a gun. You do not have teh right to take one without paying for it.

So the only thing your proposal does is allow people to clone themselves using their own means to do so? seems pretty stupid doesn't it? Anyway "you have the right to be cloned" is clearly a human rights issue.

This is about OWNERSHIP over your Genome. This is a free trade issue. EVERY other science resolution has been labelled as free trade.

And why is it stupid that you should only be cloned within your own means? Remember that as the technology develops the price will decrease (because supply increases) to the extent where almost everyone will be able to afford it.

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something, but for now free trade is the closest match.

Technology and diffusion go hand-in-hand.

Hrmm what are the negatives of a free trade resolution? it improves your economy at the expense of what?

Anyway, it is stupid because those nations which want to can easily restrict access to this technology so in effect human cloning will remain banned. Those nations which share your views on this issue can already allow it, those which do not can keep it banned so it does nothing.

I like this proposal :D , and would vote for it if it would be to get voted on by all the U.N. members.

Thanks.

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something

YES exactly for all the space exploration as well as the research

Also international aid, FAIR trade as well as free, and international communityship or something.

How do we go about requesting those kinds of things?

Oh and btw I will vote for this as soon as it is a human rights issue - it is really both economic and human rights but more rights and also liberalism in general - back to the debate about how much our supposed morals should dictate our scientific endeavours as well as the issue of ownership of your genome, which is a right more than an economic issue

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something

YES exactly for all the space exploration as well as the research

Also international aid, FAIR trade as well as free, and international communityship or something.

How do we go about requesting those kinds of things?

International aid and fair trade I think fall under social justice.

International communityship definitely falls under free trade.

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something

YES exactly for all the space exploration as well as the research

Also international aid, FAIR trade as well as free, and international communityship or something.

How do we go about requesting those kinds of things?

International aid and fair trade I think fall under social justice.

International communityship definitely falls under free trade.

Social justice is really intranational not international, but it's good enough, but on the communityship thing I mean encouraging a more unified globe politically - multilateralism over unilateralism and international law

I personally think we should create another category like "Advancement of the Sciences" or something

YES exactly for all the space exploration as well as the research

Also international aid, FAIR trade as well as free, and international communityship or something.

How do we go about requesting those kinds of things?

International aid and fair trade I think fall under social justice.

International communityship definitely falls under free trade.

Social justice is really intranational not international, but it's good enough, but on the communityship thing I mean encouraging a more unified globe politically - multilateralism over unilateralism and international law

Well... perhaps we could have an International Law topic but I still think it should fall under free trade for the time being.

And Wolomy.... this resolution DOES do something. Countries wishing the ban human cloning MUST ALLOW THEIR SCIENTISTS TO LEAVE IF THEY SO CHOOSE. And the UN will officially support it, which will put pressure on countries wishing to ban it not to.

Well... perhaps we could have an International Law topic but I still think it should fall under free trade for the time being.

And Wolomy.... this resolution DOES do something. Countries wishing the ban human cloning MUST ALLOW THEIR SCIENTISTS TO LEAVE IF THEY SO CHOOSE. And the UN will officially support it, which will put pressure on countries wishing to ban it not to.

Actually a thought here. Human cloning should be banned until it can be shown that there will be a good chance of success (with, say monkey experiments) - right now, cloning cows takes hundreds of attempts, most are born with horrible illnesses and in pain or not at all. We need to consider the human rights of the clone - can't produce one until we can give it a fair chance of a good quality of life

Well... perhaps we could have an International Law topic but I still think it should fall under free trade for the time being.

And Wolomy.... this resolution DOES do something. Countries wishing the ban human cloning MUST ALLOW THEIR SCIENTISTS TO LEAVE IF THEY SO CHOOSE. And the UN will officially support it, which will put pressure on countries wishing to ban it not to.

Actually a thought here. Human cloning should be banned until it can be shown that there will be a good chance of success (with, say monkey experiments) - right now, cloning cows takes hundreds of attempts, most are born with horrible illnesses and in pain or not at all. We need to consider the human rights of the clone - can't produce one until we can give it a fair chance of a good quality of life

Well this resolution LETS that technology proceed to the point where it will be safe... I mean I'm sure organ donations were incredibly risky at first too...

Penguenia supports this resolution.

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/raziel/ava.jpg
Ambassador and Delegate of Penguenia, Yuri Seki

I'm on board with this one, TGM. Thanks for including the principle about cloned individuals having full human rights and citizenship--that was important to me.

The Global Market thanks you for your support.

:!: you can't post something like this as a un proposal i mean this underrides the basic principals of the un it's like wrong to do this I mean the un can't be undermining the policy of some states if they don't want their people cloned fine if they want all their people cloned to increase their population thats fine the un has no right to invade in that area

Here's the final resolution:


The GenetiCorp Convention
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade Strength: Strong Proposed by: The Global Market
Description: 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. Many 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. If two people both possess the same genome, they will both have the right to duplicate and/or alter theirs.

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 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.

V. That cloned humans shall be accorded the same rights and as naturally born humans.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 2 2003


Dude you've gone ahead and made it unsupportable. Standing property rights are only valid in countries that have property rights relating to research. Would my scientists be able to engage in research free of harassment by persecution of lawsuits? Show me that is so and I will ask people to support this proposal.

I like this proposal and I've asked my Delegate to approve it.

I very highly approve of this proposal.

Basically, without all the flummery, this proposal is about eugenics. It is paraded as a free trade proposal: all economic policy is inevitably about people and therefore a human rights issue. It affects the form of society and emerges as a large contribution to social engineering.

The mention of the word eugenics should not immediately label the user as an admirer of the German National Socialist Party (Lebensborn), it is tool that has been used by all societies for centuries in the production of desirable offspring of various species (racehorses – good, I suppose - and the British monarchy – er, well say no more - spring to mind). Darwin himself saw the eugenic model as an inevitable part of the evolutionary process.

There is no denying that a project that seeks to wean out the disabilities of genetic disorders that humans and other creatures suffer is admirable. However, care should be taken that the ‘good’ is not mistakenly discarded with the ‘undesirable’. Unfortunately this aspect is seen as an entrée for various religious nutters to spout off about the ethics of the matter. Despite the distaste of the proposer for the role of the State in matters deemed individual (but nevertheless touted as a model of international cooperation) there is a role for an interventionist body to regulate the use of a technology which seeks to modify the genetic and therefore social structure of society.

Basically, Stakanovia has no real problems with the proposal as an advancement of scientific means to better the human race. The problem arises with the privatisation of the project to the whim of the selfish or just plain elitist or racist, which would be inevitable. Sure, individuals should have control of their biological ‘commodities’, but the proposal ignores the power of a few to purchase the ‘commodities’ in question or appropriate them by illegal means.

Therefore, Stakanovia, would have to say, that the proposal in it’s current form it would be unacceptable as the proposer puts a bizarre faith in the nature of the individual to use such free-for-all genetic modification technology in a manner that would be of a greater benefit to the species and not just one to create whole suburbs full of Prince Charlie Saxe-Coburg-Battenburg-Windsor clones.

"There is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenics religion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations."
George Bernard Shaw