NationStates Jolt Archive

Commonly Raised Complaints:

But if we pass this resolution than everyone will clone an army with 5 billion people or they would clone someone to use to frame a crime on or they would (insert other absurd cloning statement obviously inspired by Star Wars II here) AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

When you clone someone it starts out as a little baby. It has to go through the same process of growth that you and I do. The only thing that makes a clone different from a normal person is that its DNA only comes from one parent whereas normal humans have DNA from both parents.

Cloning goes against God's will. It must be burned like a foul heathen science.

Prove it. You know, one of the founders of Advanced Cell Technologies was acutally this rightwing Christian who decided that cloning was not contrary to God's will, since it would improve the lives of people on Earth.

So PROVE that God exists. I'm NOT saying that God DOESN'T exist, I AM saying that it is logically impossible to prove either way.

If this bill passes then all of the clones will be enslaved!

Read Section V. Clones have the same rights as other humans.

There are too many potential problems. Therefore, we should not go through with this.

There were alot of problems with the airplane too. Should the government have forced the Wright Brothers to abandon their work because airplanes might one day be used to destroy the World Trade Center? Of course not.

This is human arrogance. We have no right to mess with nature.

Yes we do. Every species messes with nature. Tell you what, go remove all of your clothes and go forage for food in the woods. But don't let me catch you sniffing through my garbage.

The human race is too big for evolution to take its natural course. If our species is to continue surviving, it means participating in our evolution.

This bill will compromise my national security and sovereignty.

Why the hell are you in the UN? I made a clause specifically PROTECTING national sovereignity yet people still complain about this? ALL resolutions will violate your sovereignity. This one actually gives your nation a good amount of control over your territory.

This resolution will legalize GM crops! This is a blantant attempt to establish corporate tyranny over the world! Workers of the world unite! Think of the children!

This is NOT a massive corporate conspiracy to take over the world. It's an honest attempt at scientific progress. Your nation is allowed to regulate GM crops under Article III of this bill.

Vote against this because TGM wrote it!

Right. Okay. Please use an actual argument next time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this has cleared up any questions you may have had. If there are any more, than I will be glad to answer them. Vote FOR GenetiCorp.

GenetiCorp: We Pick Up Where God Left Off

This is a great FAQ. Everyone should read it. Bump.

Loved it. Raise the roof

Thanks :)

Commonly Raised Complaints: ...

This resolution will legalize GM crops! This is a blantant attempt to establish corporate tyranny over the world! Workers of the world unite! Think of the children!

This is NOT a massive corporate conspiracy to take over the world. It's an honest attempt at scientific progress. Your nation is allowed to regulate GM crops under Article III of this bill...


How about submitting this as "Red Herringstan". We have never said anything about a corporate conspiracy to take over the world. We do say that the Resolution, on its face, would abolish international laws that regulate GM crops (and animals). It's fine that individual nations could still regulate them. But GM can pose WORLDWIDE dangers, and is properly the subject of international law, based on sound science.

You're from Europe aren't you...

As long as the genetic structure isn't modified to create designer babies than I'm ok with cloning/genetic modification. To eliminate genetic defects, disease, and deformities is a good thing in my humble opinion. Men and women can go to fertility clinics and before the egg is fertalized with the mans sperm the genetic structure of both parents can be analyized and any problems weeded out.

Allowing parents to change eye color, hair color, etc... isn't something that should be allowed under any circumstance. Additionally, neither should the creation of clones with identical genetic structure be allowed.

You forget one argument: cloning is often seen as a very unethical thing. Just think about the situations, when it is wanted to clone people. These clones, even if they have the same human rights, live with the expectations to be like the original. It is unethical to be forced to live with the expectation to be like the famous scientist or like the daughter, who died in an accident.

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 is 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 satisfy those you seek personal gratification at the expense of the natural, and indeed harvestable, genetic wealth of humankind.