NationStates Jolt Archive

Whereas: The GenetiCorp convention narrowly failed.
Whereas: Seeing some of the posts on the forum, it is a good bet that at least half of the people voting against the GenetiCorp convention did so because they grossly misunderstood the nature of cloning.

Therefore, be it resolved that: Everyone in the world should be required to take a high-school level introductory biology class before being allowed to participate in politics.

I took a genetics class in highschool, and it did nothing but inform me of something I really could care less about. Same with biology. What does this have to do with what I am studying right now, aerodynamics? Nothing. It was a complete waste of time.

Please don't turn into Fantasan TGM, I'd hate to see you start calling people authoritarian NAZI's every time they disagree with you.

I support the proposal. Just make it pass-fail, because maths and I are not on friendly terms.

I support the proposal. Just make it pass-fail, because maths and I are not on friendly terms.
Biology has nothing to do with math! Maybe TGM is on to something here :?

I support the proposal. Just make it pass-fail, because maths and I are not on friendly terms.
Biology has nothing to do with math! Maybe TGM is on to something here :?

I quote from the webpage of the Mathematics Department at the UC Berkeley:

"The lack of real contact between mathematics and biology is either a tragedy, a scandal or a challenge, it is hard to decide which. – Gian-Carlo Rota

The mathematical and computational biology efforts in the department of mathematics at U.C. Berkeley range from investigations in Radiobiology, to DNA topology and computational genomics..."

So the fact is probably that biology, historically, has not had enough to do with mathematics, but the interaction between the two fields is potentially very great. Galileo said: "Mathematics is the language in which the book of nature is written." That includes biology.

Stop sulking TGM.

As pointed out by a lot of people, your proposal failed not because of a lack of understanding of the principles of Genetics (which I'm sure are as vague as your own) but because of the politics with which you feathered the argument.

Strange also you should even be considering a compulsory anything for anyone (execpt the appropriation of money and capital). Maybe that is just the nature of your politics. Anarchy up 'til the point where disagreement occurs, then it's full steam ahead with good old-fashioned authoritarian daddy-state mentality.

If anything you could probably do with some compulsory courses in petulance management and poltical science.

Love
Stakanovia

Everyone in the world should be required to take a high-school level introductory biology class before being allowed to participate in politics.

This is against any laws of democracy! No support for this slan from the Rejis!

EDIT: Corrected some typos

Whereas: The GenetiCorp convention narrowly failed.
Whereas: Seeing some of the posts on the forum, it is a good bet that at least half of the people voting against the GenetiCorp convention did so because they grossly misunderstood the nature of cloning.

Therefore, be it resolved that: Everyone in the world should be required to take a high-school level introductory biology class before being allowed to participate in politics.

What a good idea! I didn't think you cared for the positive freedom thing, maybe you have finally become enlightened. Of course if you educate everyone they will see the flaws in neo-liberalism so they still wont support your silly proposals. Try submitting geneticorp again with a better name and in a better category (human rights) and it will probably pass.

I support the proposal. Just make it pass-fail, because maths and I are not on friendly terms.
Biology has nothing to do with math! Maybe TGM is on to something here :?

I quote from the webpage of the Mathematics Department at the UC Berkeley:

"The lack of real contact between mathematics and biology is either a tragedy, a scandal or a challenge, it is hard to decide which. – Gian-Carlo Rota

The mathematical and computational biology efforts in the department of mathematics at U.C. Berkeley range from investigations in Radiobiology, to DNA topology and computational genomics..."

So the fact is probably that biology, historically, has not had enough to do with mathematics, but the interaction between the two fields is potentially very great. Galileo said: "Mathematics is the language in which the book of nature is written." That includes biology.

See!

I knew it!

Math is lurking around the corner.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

There are still a lot of people that say "cloning is bad." No matter how well a proposal for cloning is, they will continue to vote against it for this reason.

I took a genetics class in highschool, and it did nothing but inform me of something I really could care less about. Same with biology. What does this have to do with what I am studying right now, aerodynamics? Nothing. It was a complete waste of time.

I can see a direct relationship between biology and aerodynamics. Some animals are naturally more aerodynamic than others. Perhaps that can be extended to make some (people) more aerodynamic with further study.

Global Market,

We in Gurthark thought the Geneticorp Convention had a fair bit of merit (we supported it) and would like to see something similar succeed. However, proposals like this one are not the way to go about it.

We *do* think that a fair number of people voted against the proposal because of lack of understanding of biology (those who posted, for example, that reproductive cloning can create a carbon copy of an adult within a short amount of time), but first, a proposal like this will not change that, and second, many people had much more reasonable objections (we had some of them, though they were not enough to overcome our general belief that the proposal was a good idea):

1. Many people, for religious or spiritual reasons, believe that any "tampering" with our genetic code is a bad idea. I don't think you can do much to win these people over, but there's no reason to alienate them by insulting them. This is a matter of belief; nothing more.

2. Many people, ourselves included, were worried that there was no provision to protect natural gene-lines of plants and animals from "genetic invasion" by GMOs. Stating that governments are free to do this themselves is not adequate protection; we don't want *our* natural plantlife contaminated *your* modified crops. Governments need to be *required* to ensure that cross-contamination is prevented. I think you'd get *much* more support with such a provision.

3. Many people were thrown off by the fact that the proposal was listed as "free trade." Your arguments that some other scientific proposals had been so listed was unconvincing; this was clearly a human rights proposal and should have been listed as such.

4. Many people were thrown off by constant references to "ownership rights." The proposal should have been kept to what, if I understood correctly, were its main points:
a) People have the right to clone themselves (or not)
b) People have the right to undergo gene therapy (or not)
c) Research on civillian uses of biotechnology should not be banned (but we in Gurthark believe that you should allow, and indeed enforce, some regulation--see in particular number two above and what comes below).

5. Some people were worried about protections for cloned offspring. While the proposal did guarantee equal rights for cloned offspring, there were a couple of legitimate concerns that remained:
a) Granting people unlimited rights to undergo *germ-cell* (as opposed to *somatic-cell*) gene therapy, or to genetically engineer their offspring completely, may be a bit much. It opens up horrifying new forms of child abuse (parents committing Munchausen-by-Proxy by deliberately giving their children genetic diseases, for example). Limiting genetic-engineering rights to somatic-cell therapy on oneself, or at least placing some restrictions on germ-cell therapy, might be wise.
b) Some people were concerned about the experimental phase of cloning. Generally, when we have first cloned a new life form, the first few viable clones have been extremely unhealthy, suffering problems such as increased cancer incidence, accelerated aging, sterility, etc. Although I defended the proposal from this attack, saying that this is just a special case of the general rule that any sort of medical experimentation on humans needs to be regulated, the objectors did have a point. Absent any international law protecting subjects of human experiments, you'd be best off adding such a law as a rider on this one.

If problems 2-5 are addressed and the proposal resubmitted, we in Gurthark would not only support it but would feel comfortable aggressively lobbying our region-mates and the United Nations in its support. We think it will probably pass, since, as you say, the margin of defeat was fairly small. This would be far more productive than creating resolutions to insult your opponents.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[quote="Gurthark"]The proposal should have been kept to what, if I understood correctly, were its main points:
a) People have the right to clone themselves (or not)
b) People have the right to undergo gene therapy (or not)
c) Research on civillian uses of biotechnology should not be banned (but we in Gurthark believe that you should allow, and indeed enforce, some regulation--see in particular number two above and what comes below).

If the proposal were reworded in that way, and if it avoided specifically ENDORSING human cloning, we could probably support it. We would want it understood, however, that international law could REGULATE both cloning and GM (as opposed to BANNING it), provided scientific principles were followed.