NationStates Jolt Archive

Most countries with a view to prosper and empower their citizens undoubtably applaud any meausre that would acheive that end. The latest resolution, however, does not. It stems from the fallacious assumption that this world is composed of uncoutable trillions of seperate entities (be it humans, mice, flies, ebola virus, etc). Any student of nearly any branch of science would dismiss this as hogwash. We are all interconnected, not just physically (e.g. when I pollute MY back yard it pollutes the local water suppy), socially (e.g. the change I make to my gender affects my relationships), and ecologically (enhanced crops, "enhanced" genetics for animals or humands).
A noble resolution - but one whose premise is based on untruth and a world view that has not stood the test of time.
I implore all nations to reject this archaic resolution.

Sincerely,
The Science Council for Almost Paradise.

The "everything is linked" argument is in itself not necessarily sufficient justification for such a policy. The "everything is linked" argument could also be used to argue that imprisoning a man who commits a crime is bad on the basis that his wife and children will be left without his companionship and his income.

My major contention with this bill is that it contains no provisions regarding the rights of persons who are produced as a result of cloning. Does a clone have rights equal to a person created sexually? Does a clone have the right to dispute the process that led to his/her own creation (such as suing the "original" over any genetic diseases he/she was given)? Until clones can be treated as people and not as products, I can not support their creation.

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.

My major contention with this bill is that it contains no provisions regarding the rights of persons who are produced as a result of cloning. Does a clone have rights equal to a person created sexually? Does a clone have the right to dispute the process that led to his/her own creation (such as suing the "original" over any genetic diseases he/she was given)? Until clones can be treated as people and not as products, I can not support their creation.

(taken from the resolution)

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

Read proposals more scrutinously in the future before making contentions

OOC: Explorer is faulty. Sorry for posting twice

Most countries with a view to prosper and empower their citizens undoubtably applaud any meausre that would acheive that end. The latest resolution, however, does not. It stems from the fallacious assumption that this world is composed of uncoutable trillions of seperate entities (be it humans, mice, flies, ebola virus, etc). Any student of nearly any branch of science would dismiss this as hogwash. We are all interconnected, not just physically (e.g. when I pollute MY back yard it pollutes the local water suppy), socially (e.g. the change I make to my gender affects my relationships), and ecologically (enhanced crops, "enhanced" genetics for animals or humands).
A noble resolution - but one whose premise is based on untruth and a world view that has not stood the test of time.
I implore all nations to reject this archaic resolution.

Sincerely,
The Science Council for Almost Paradise.

What does this have to do with my resolution?

This IS an archaic proposal. But that is archaic about it is that it gives the U.N.'s blessing to the proposition that multi-national corporations should have NO international oversight of their activities--even though such activities might well have worldwide consequences.

We implore everyone: READ THIS PROPOSAL before you vote. It isn't just about human cloning. It's about "all forms of biotechnology of a civilian nature". That includes things like genetically-modified plants and animals. If this resolution passes, it will abolish existing international laws (and discourage future ones) that require private corporations to pursue biotechnology in a benign, safe, and scientifically sound manner.

When governments attempt to empower citizens to "own" their own genetics, or allow any change to a person's genetic code, in the attempt to extend some personal rights and freedoms, it soundly ignores the consequences to such "ownership" and freedom to mutate genetic code.
With the strictest of governmental control, some nations have found genetically altered food where it does not belong. No, this is not a moral (aka irrational religious) argument. It is a scientific one.
The proposal goes a long way toward some good measures, but then crosses the line into ecologically dangerous territory. It is for this reason it must be declined.
Please note I am encouraged by the noble and well intentioned proposal, and the great country making it. But I fear our own ignorance and arrogance will some day be our own undoing.

This IS an archaic proposal. But that is archaic about it is that it gives the U.N.'s blessing to the proposition that multi-national corporations should have NO international oversight of their activities--even though such activities might well have worldwide consequences.

We implore everyone: READ THIS PROPOSAL before you vote. It isn't just about human cloning. It's about "all forms of biotechnology of a civilian nature". That includes things like genetically-modified plants and animals. If this resolution passes, it will abolish existing international laws (and discourage future ones) that require private corporations to pursue biotechnology in a benign, safe, and scientifically sound manner.

I completely agree. The language in Article II is much too general for Gonuts to support this proposal. International laws must guard for biotech misuses such as potentially harmful genetically altered crops. I'm begining to see some credence in the bait and switch accusations flying around.

i'm lost