NationStates Jolt Archive

Weve all heard that cloning isnt all that bad, and for most people it probably isnt.

but what happens if a kidnapped official, such as a leader of a country, general of an army, or delegate to the UN gets cloned? you would never be able to tell the difference between them, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to. now, although the clone would of course be identical to the leader or delegate, that doesnt mean that he (or she) would share the same decisions on matters. for example, if the clone is told that he (or she) could take the leaders place, what would stop them?

would you do it? I would.

now, dont get me wrong, I believe that cloning of say, organs, is very worthwhile. I just think cloning humans is not very smart, because like everything else it cannot be controled, and the technology will get into the wrong hands, eventually.

of course eventually the technology will be developed weather we want it to or not, so vote whichever way you want, it wont be legal in my country.

All someone would ned is a hair, or a drop of blood, to screw up an entire country and or economy.

You will recognize the difference very easily: The cloned leader/delegate would be much younger than the original and a simple question about his past would also prove the difference, since it is impossible to transfer memories.

That does not mean, that I am for the resolution. I oppose it for ethical reasons.

As stated, the process of cloning means growing from an egg an identical likeness of a person currently alive. Unless you mean to clone a child before the age of 5 in anticipation of his rise to governmental power, then the differences in age would be rather obvious.

Besides, who should have to deal with 2-bit impersonation acts when we could resurrect the real King and teach him all his own songs?

Threat to National Security? Pwah, HUMANS are a threat to national security! Not one thing in government anywhere has been spurred by anything but a human. Humans kill! Quick, before they become an imminent danger, eliminate all the humans in your country!

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


This statement alone causes me to vote no, without all the other arguments.

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


This statement alone causes me to vote no, without all the other arguments.

Everything is a threat to national security.

The trick is to be ahead of the curve and have our own clone armies.

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


This statement alone causes me to vote no, without all the other arguments.

Again:

So you think that an international body should decide your domestic policy, rather than your own sovereign government?

Fascinating.

The preamble to this Resolution talks about human cloning, as do almost all of the arguments made by its sponsor, The Global Market. However, the "meat" of the resolution would abolish "all international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature". Biotechnology is a much broader field than cloning, and would include such things as genetically-altered crops and animals (some of which have already caused widespread devastation worldwide). If there is any field that fairly cries out for some sort of international regulation, of a scientifically-responsible nature, it is biotechnology.

It seems to us that this is a classic case of "bait-and-switch" advertising. The resolution isn't really about giving people the right to their own genomes. It's about giving corporations the right to pursue biotechnology without being subject to international regulation.

Do we really want the multi-nationals to have that much power? Why isn't this proposal being presented accurately?

it would be possible, as technology increases, to be able to speed up the "growing up" process of human beings, to make a clone develop way faster than normal. so an age difference may matter in the beginning, however that argument will be nulled as biotechnology increases.

and it wouldnt take very long for someone to mess things up, and most people probabaly wouldnt notice if one picked up a hair from the ground.

so forget kidnapping, all you would need is a hair or drop of blood,
*as i stated previously

8)

The preamble to this Resolution talks about human cloning, as do almost all of the arguments made by its sponsor, The Global Market. However, the "meat" of the resolution would abolish "all international laws specifically directed against the development of any form of biotechnology of a civilian nature". Biotechnology is a much broader field than cloning, and would include such things as genetically-altered crops and animals (some of which have already caused widespread devastation worldwide). If there is any field that fairly cries out for some sort of international regulation, of a scientifically-responsible nature, it is biotechnology.

bees genetically alter the plants that they pollenate, farmers cross-breed plants to get a jucier tomatoe, a more potent weed, bigger oranges.

plants evolved with animals in order to genetically alter themselves, evolution in it self is genetic alteration. and i dont think that 4 billion years of evolution is that wrong.

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


This statement alone causes me to vote no, without all the other arguments.

Again:

So you think that an international body should decide your domestic policy, rather than your own sovereign government?

Fascinating.

We don't necessarily think that there should be international laws "directed against" such technology. But we do think that the matter should be given serious scientific scrutiny to determine what international regulation of biotechnology, if any, is necessary and appropriate.

We haven't seen any kind of serious attempt to provide such scrutiny.

So you think that an international body should decide your domestic policy, rather than your own sovereign government?

Fascinating.

In many cases, yes. We are happy to have international laws guaranteeing basic human rights and protecting the environment.

Please note that the NS UN is not the same as other organizations called the "United Nations" that you may have heard of. As stated in the FAQ, the NS UN *does* effectively function as a tool for NS nations to attempt to "make over the world in their own image." It is not simply, or indeed at all, a forum for mediating international disputes, since it doesn't even have the functionality necessary to mediate such disputes.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark