NationStates Jolt Archive

yes i believe so but as i am not a delegate i do not have the power of proposal. i am pleased with many of our laws but i should also propose the ban of GMF's for their harmful effects on the environment, also to add to the hydrogen fuel act there should be a hydrogen power plant act.

i curious on the people's opinion

I voted "Yes".

Also, you don't have to be a delegate to submit a proposal...all you need are two endorsements.

unfortunatly i do not have any enorsements at the moment cause i'm in my own area larune

If you have a proposal, feel free to t-gram it to me and I'll submit it for you.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

It is our Evolutionary Birthright to pollute the environment. Nature exists only to serve man. There should only be basic limitations on pollution and those should focus on the defense of property rights, i.e. your right NOT to have toxic waste dumped in your yard.

It is our Evolutionary Birthright to pollute the environment. Nature exists only to serve man. There should only be basic limitations on pollution and those should focus on the defense of property rights, i.e. your right NOT to have toxic waste dumped in your yard.

So, we evolved from a clean and pristine planet, and now we have the right to destroy that which gave us life?

Nature exists only to serve man.

I'm sorry that you take this reactionary view.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

It is our Evolutionary Birthright to pollute the environment. Nature exists only to serve man. There should only be basic limitations on pollution and those should focus on the defense of property rights, i.e. your right NOT to have toxic waste dumped in your yard.

So, we evolved from a clean and pristine planet, and now we have the right to destroy that which gave us life?

Every species in nature uses the environment to further its own survival and thrival. The environment should only be protected insofar as it helps us. This is part of nature.

Nature exists only to serve man.

I'm sorry that you take this reactionary view.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I've never been called 'reactionary' before in my life. Can you explain why this view is reactionary (i.e. why it contradicts progress)?

No, fool, OTHER animals ADAPT to nature, whereas we adapt nature to suit our needs. You see, humans are destroying the planet, and we don't realize that even though it is helping us now, if we keep destroying it, it won't be there to help us in the future. That is why other animals adapt to nature: so it is there in the future to help them.

No, fool, OTHER animals ADAPT to nature, whereas we adapt nature to suit our needs. You see, humans are destroying the planet, and we don't realize that even though it is helping us now, if we keep destroying it, it won't be there to help us in the future. That is why other animals adapt to nature: so it is there in the future to help them.

When a beaver builds a dam it is adapting nature to itself.

Nature exists only to serve man.

I'm sorry that you take this reactionary view.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I've never been called 'reactionary' before in my life. Can you explain why this view is reactionary (i.e. why it contradicts progress)?

Because I feel that progress is best achieved by protecting the environment, not destroying it.

This has been an OOC post.

No, fool, OTHER animals ADAPT to nature, whereas we adapt nature to suit our needs. You see, humans are destroying the planet, and we don't realize that even though it is helping us now, if we keep destroying it, it won't be there to help us in the future. That is why other animals adapt to nature: so it is there in the future to help them.

When a beaver builds a dam it is adapting nature to itself.

Yes, but it is not destroying nature by doing so. In fact, WE aren't destroying nature by building dams either. Dams (human made ones) provide electricity, and it doesn't pollute the earth like a coal plant or a nuclear plant would. The one downside to dams (both human and beaver) is that the areas behind them get less water, and even then, it is never so much that the entire ecosystem suffers because of it. Entire ecosystems are built around beaver dams, new ones have been created by human dams, whereas every other method that humans change nature destroys ecosystems.

Nature exists only to serve man.

I'm sorry that you take this reactionary view.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I've never been called 'reactionary' before in my life. Can you explain why this view is reactionary (i.e. why it contradicts progress)?

Because I feel that progress is best achieved by protecting the environment, not destroying it.

This has been an OOC post.

Progress is the development of better technologies and more desirable social systems. Going back to nature... that is antiprogress.

global market it is NATURE that sustains us gives us life gives us food it is nature that allows us to live and breath nature doesn't need us we need it and therefore we should respect nature but noy out of fear fool. for a plant can produce and use it's own oxygen. you better darn well respect the earth for it is that which sustains us, we are a part of nature and nature is a part of us do you cut off your own arm? no you live peacfully with it and it supports you. also can you stop a hurricane a tornado a psunami no we are children of the earth we are not it's creator and we are fools to think ourselves so!

If you have a proposal, feel free to t-gram it to me and I'll submit it for you.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

THX goobergunchian

If you have a proposal, feel free to t-gram it to me and I'll submit it for you.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

THX goobergunchian
You could always ask me too.

I'm sorry, but human dam does destroy nature (look at all the surrounding ecosystem destroyed because of the increased amount of water in a lake). Similarly, a beaver dam does also destroy nature.

The problem is not exploiting nature, as most animals do so. The problem is overexploiting nature. This is only done by human, as we stopped focussing on fulfilling our basic needs a couple of centuries ago to focus on other needs (i.e. the capacity to travel quickly (cars)) which consume too much energy.

Ambassador Anthony
The Oppressed People of Twitus

To answer the broad question, yes and no, we need better environmental standards.

I think there is something called the "law of deminishing returns" or something.

It says that you can't do 100% of something because at some point along the way, it becomes too cost prohibitive. The design of the UN process would raise environmental standards with a heavy economic impact.

It is our Evolutionary Birthright to pollute the environment. Nature exists only to serve man. There should only be basic limitations on pollution and those should focus on the defense of property rights, i.e. your right NOT to have toxic waste dumped in your yard.

lol, your words made me laugh. You are however the kind of people that give evolution a bad name. But not I give you something to think about.

What about toxic waste that of which a bit rolls on to your land?
What about toxic waste that spreads through a little bit of ground water in on your land?
What about toxic waste that gets in the air into your land?
What about toxic waste that polutes all the air including those on your land?
What about a reduction of oxigen in the atmosphere that reduces the oxigen on your land as well?
What about green house gasses that raise the temperate on your land distruption your carefull balanced garden?
What about ozen layer distruption that happens to remove the ozen above your lands removing the ability to lay peacefully in the sun on YOUR land.

Well I think I said enough, counting on you to vote with us on the ecology laws :)
And don't cheat by changing your philosphy sudden, got you square in the middle :P

No, fool, OTHER animals ADAPT to nature, whereas we adapt nature to suit our needs. You see, humans are destroying the planet, and we don't realize that even though it is helping us now, if we keep destroying it, it won't be there to help us in the future. That is why other animals adapt to nature: so it is there in the future to help them.

When a beaver builds a dam it is adapting nature to itself.

Fair point. We are just way to effective beavers :)

Actually the real problem is not that we do, but that we do it so fast. You could kinda say we are changing things so fast that that the rest of nature can't keep up. They adapt slower than we do. That is mainly the little trouble of this whole destroying nature thing.

There is another afcourse and that is by changing earth to much, we can only pray our mind is capable of keeping up adapting to fast enough to those changes too, or we will end up with a planet our own bodies where not made for. To little oxigen, to warm, to much radiation, to much dangerious or alien chemicals. Our minds adapt quick, or bodies much much slower, they still work with those bloody slow gene thing.

The argument to keep the world exactly as it was is a bit void. First of all we are far to late for that, second we could wish if we want to, but the world happens to be changing on its own too. However they have an important mission. Not to stop it, but just give enough counter balance to slow it down.

Quite an interesting debate here and so I must add my own viewpoint, this thing about beaver dams and human dams is a good one firstly human dam are incredibly destructive the land behind a dam is flooded way beyond what would happen normally and it stays like that for as long as the dam is there, whereas in a beaver dam the water level is hardly raised which creates a significantly slighter impact on the environment.

As for industries being harmed by tighter environmental controls only those business that caused huge harm would suffer and there are plenty of alternatives to nearly all of the damaging actions of man. Fuel used by motor vehicles could be replaced with bio-fuel grown from sugar beat and oil seed rape which is good for the farmer and good for the environment because when used bio-fuels release no harmful fumes and do not require any sort of conversion to the car or the engine in way shape or form.

Alternative power sources are incredibly varied from the well known solar,hydro-electric,wind turbine and similar others to more effective systems utilising the power of water to create enormous amounts of power capable of supplying a large city, for example London for an enitre day, all of which at a very low investment cost.

I think I've made my point tighter laws need to be met with alternatives for industry and incentives that way not only do industry giants have a window to remain successful which is of course their priority but everyone else keeps their jobs and a better environment.

we are a part of nature and nature is a part of us. Do you cut off your own arm? no - you live peacfully with it and it supports you.

I love that someone said this - our poet laureate and national physisist Fritjof Kundera speaks of this very point, in his poem Theosophy and the Systems View of Life:

The difficulty of consciousness is the problem of experience
The sleeper on the mattress is rolling over;
realizing that the pea is not going to go away.
In Idumea, we raised individualism to its highest expression,
each of us protecting our boundaries, asserting our rights, creating a culture that leaves the individual suspended in glorious, but terrifying, isolation.

Lovely point - thank you Larune, for making it!

For the sake of argument...

Nature is bad. We should ban nature.

For the sake of argument...

Nature is bad. We should ban nature. Granted, that is an "argument" but one that should be characterized as incomplete and encouraging pedantism. Complete the the list of thesis possibilities. Nature is good. We should ban nature. Nature is neutral. We should ban Nature. How do you evaluate Nature and give it an absolute value? Hmm...I would suggest going back and debating the original question to create a concensus and not interjecting distracting banalities. Wittgenstein has a very good quotation that should serve as the impetus to for the level of discussion in our forums: "Denken wollen ist eins; Talent zum Denken haben, ein Anderes." Translated: Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking another. Adopt the resolution.

The UN has TOO many enviromental laws.

For the sake of argument...

Nature is bad. We should ban nature.

Quit sensless. But I though it was really funny :D. Thanks

Quite an interesting debate here and so I must add my own viewpoint, this thing about beaver dams and human dams is a good one firstly human dam are incredibly destructive the land behind a dam is flooded way beyond what would happen normally and it stays like that for as long as the dam is there, whereas in a beaver dam the water level is hardly raised which creates a significantly slighter impact on the environment.

As for industries being harmed by tighter environmental controls only those business that caused huge harm would suffer and there are plenty of alternatives to nearly all of the damaging actions of man. Fuel used by motor vehicles could be replaced with bio-fuel grown from sugar beat and oil seed rape which is good for the farmer and good for the environment because when used bio-fuels release no harmful fumes and do not require any sort of conversion to the car or the engine in way shape or form.

Alternative power sources are incredibly varied from the well known solar,hydro-electric,wind turbine and similar others to more effective systems utilising the power of water to create enormous amounts of power capable of supplying a large city, for example London for an enitre day, all of which at a very low investment cost.

I think I've made my point tighter laws need to be met with alternatives for industry and incentives that way not only do industry giants have a window to remain successful which is of course their priority but everyone else keeps their jobs and a better environment.

Actually the dams of bevers are (or where) damaging as well. However the change was so slowly and nature had so much time. That nowadays it is an elementary part of the ecosystem. I don't know where, but I think I saw on tv (bbc or national discovery) that it does good to the enviroment now. It would probably mean some parts of the eco system depend on it.

Maybe for example the calming of a streams, giving some water birds the possiblity to build nests in more calmly water.

About tighter laws on industries. Hmmmm.
You do know that by just living you polute. So I suggest mass suicide :P.

One of the biggest problem with bans on industries in favor of enivorment is the market system. You ban it, making it more expensive. So the industries move to other nations seriously disrupting your economy. I guess that is one of the reasons it is better to do it in UN proposals.
Without that moving away and that strong competition element we are capable of living quit enviromental damaging free. Though it will go at the expense of al lot of the little gadgets we have. But those are not really necassery to life a healthy and fullfilling live.

For anybody who is in favor of capitalism. Note here, this was one of the serious disadvantages for that.
Also note that the lack of democracy in communistic nations made it none better :P. Oh as excuse of the communists (though I don't give them a pardon for it), they where competing pretty intensly as well, though not as individual people, but as nations versis other nations.
If anything the cold war was a major economic competition.

we are a part of nature and nature is a part of us. Do you cut off your own arm? no - you live peacfully with it and it supports you.

Actually, your arm?

I would say something like heart....or long would be more appropiate.
Until we have an artificial long we are quite dependend on it.

If however nature decides to cut us off, well that would be like removing a very annoying pimpel :)...some would call it a cancer cell :P:P:P

For the sake of argument...

Nature is bad. We should ban nature.

Quit sensless. But I though it was really funny :D. Thanks

The environment exists solely for our exploitation. If we need environment, we'll "import" it from those "environmentally stunning" nations. The arrangements are in the works.