NationStates Jolt Archive

this resolution protects ANY POSSIBLE LIFEFORM-including, not only animals, but plants and even viruses!in other terms, harvesting grain will be illegal, slaughtering cattle will be illegal, and eatin will be illegal, treating a disease will be illegal! it will be impossible to comply with the resoltuion without starving, and letting people die of easily-preventable diseases.... even the animals it supposedly protects would starve, sicne cows would no longer be allowed to graze, since they would be "killing" grass. Save the world-stop this resolution.

Too bad so few bother to read the debate on this forum.
I keep thinking about resigning; maybe now would be a good time.

The only way to prevent this measure is to lobby powerful delegate nations, then?

-The Commonwealth of Cowes

Hey, viruses aren't alive. Shame on your biological knowledge, Cirdanistan!

I have only been a member of this organization for 1 week, and I am really getting fed-up with these resolutions.

I really don't like the fact that so few people in this game actually bother to think over the resolutions before clicking the submit/vote buttons. Sure, if a person has just completed his "Hooked on Phoenix", this proposal may appear to be valid. But for the rest of us, it's a shame to not be able to recognize the flaws of this and many other proposals. The World Heritage was bad enough, and now this is getting 10/1 votes, it makes me sick (at least World Heritage tried to SOMEWHAT follow the UN format standards).

People should realize that this is not the same as those daily issues, the UN resolutions affecte all the members and that is why we are given one week to think about it.

:idea: Hmm...perhaps if UN required a basic literacy/reading comprehension test as one of the requirements...how's that for a resolution?

Demo-Bobylon: OK, dangerous bacteria, is that better?

The point is, whoever wrote this resolution obviously did not bother to review it, much like the people who voted for it.

I think the key point that must be considered with regard to this resolution is common sense. This resolution does not impose a ban on all killing- it asks that all nations respect life in its many forms, and try not to damage it. This is an admirable goal.

Admittedly, it could be interpreted as you suggest. I find this a fault in the interpretation, rather than the resolution. It seeks to affirm the right to life- to create a universal respect for all things living. It is not a policy resolution dictating how living things must be treated specifically.

Just as the UN Declaration of Human Rights (RL) does not stop countries such as the US from using the death penalty, this resolutino would not cause starvation, so long as it is interpretted sensibly.

Phoebos, UN is not about "common sence". Common Sence is a very loose term which means basic human instincts that are innate to the point where most cannot identify them.

UN resolutions are about straight-forward ideas that aren't subject to multiple interpretations.

This proposal is so obscure that many just don't recognize its fallacy

Real Life UN does nothing but act as a "what should be" for the world. In NationStates, UN acts as a "what is", that is where this proposal is wrong.

*sigh*

This proposal gives refrence to symbiotic relationships of nature. Surely this includes eating.

The proposal calls for respect to the essence of life. Surely this also includes respect for the systems of nature. Which include, if I'm not misteken, eating.

Jeez.

Hey, viruses aren't alive. Shame on your biological knowledge, Cirdanistan!actually, they are. They are not "complex molecules" because they are composed of several distinct molecules; the argument that they arn't alive is a good one (that they don't, strictly speaking, have self-reproductive capacity) but it's flawed; from a virus pirating cells to any of the many parasites that lay their eggs under your skin, there is but a small step.

Whether or not virii are alive, it seems to me that this proposal would permit both anti-viral and antibiotic medication, since it does make an exception for self-defence. However, it seems to mandate fruitarianism or a similar diet--even veganism would be too liberal.

It's a dreadful proposal, like the two that came before it. It seems very likely to pass.

Our Minister for Social Welfare, Billy Bob Qi-Duk, is already working around the clock to try to find loopholes in this proposal. We're considering changing our agriculture practices so that harvested plants and slaugetered animals are always those that have "harmed others" in some way, however slight. This is expensive, cumbersome, and violates the spirit of the resolution, but it will at least save our populace from starvation without requiring us to leave the U.N.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Whether or not virii are alive, it seems to me that this proposal would permit both anti-viral and antibiotic medication, since it does make an exception for self-defence. However, it seems to mandate fruitarianism or a similar diet--even veganism would be too liberal.

It's a dreadful proposal, like the two that came before it. It seems very likely to pass.

Our Minister for Social Welfare, Billy Bob Qi-Duk, is already working around the clock to try to find loopholes in this proposal. We're considering changing our agriculture practices so that harvested plants and slaugetered animals are always those that have "harmed others" in some way, however slight. This is expensive, cumbersome, and violates the spirit of the resolution, but it will at least save our populace from starvation without requiring us to leave the U.N.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark
I've begun contacting delegates whom I know and have voted for it to change their vote.

Unfortunately, this motion could be quite the ordeal... If more people bothered to read it properly, instead of just scanning the document lightly, perhaps the votes would swing the other way.

Any living creature who wishes to remain in the United Nations would have to evolve photosynthesis. Welcome to the age of the Neo-Human!

The only solution now is to lobby. I have lobbied all UN members in my region, North Atlantic, to vote NO on this resolution. Please try to do so with as many UN members in you region as possible. Also, lobby the regional reps that have voted YES on this resolution to change it to NO.

Hey, viruses aren't alive. Shame on your biological knowledge, Cirdanistan!

That's debatable. Viruses have DNA and proteins and they can expend energy. They can also reproduce by infecting cells...

There's no clear scientific consensus either way.

I think the key point that must be considered with regard to this resolution is common sense. This resolution does not impose a ban on all killing- it asks that all nations respect life in its many forms, and try not to damage it. This is an admirable goal.

Admittedly, it could be interpreted as you suggest. I find this a fault in the interpretation, rather than the resolution. It seeks to affirm the right to life- to create a universal respect for all things living. It is not a policy resolution dictating how living things must be treated specifically.

Just as the UN Declaration of Human Rights (RL) does not stop countries such as the US from using the death penalty, this resolutino would not cause starvation, so long as it is interpretted sensibly.

But herein lies the difficulty - "interpretation." There are two interpretative moves in the resolution itself which makes it even more dangerous than on the first, light reading.

The problems with the all-encompassing "life" aspect have already been well-treated. But consider how United Middle-Earth (UM-E) explained the resolution. Within it, it seems that the inherent right of existence is key, for anything qualified as living. But then, UM-E interprets its own resolution as saying that slavery should be banned within the UN. While the Royal Commonwealth is no fan of slavery, a right to existence (as stated in the resolution) does not logically require the right of a free existence.

Second, UM-E also interprets (completely out of nowhere) that the designation of "sexual orientation" should be removed by the UN members. Not only does UM-E seem to ignore the rather controversial UN resolution passed some months ago on the homosexuality question, but also once again makes this "interpretation" out of whole cloth.

If the nation making the resolution cannot keep its own interpretations consistent with the resolution, what can the other UN members expect? This resolution could be a doorway for all sorts of mischef....naturally leaving aside the question of our populations starving to death while our police forces interrogate spiders for the murders of flies.

Hopefully before Wednesday, more delegates and nations will see the utter lunacy of this proposal. But the Royal Commonwealth will not hold its breath.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

...But the Royal Commonwealth will not hold its breath...

I beg to differ, most gracious sir! The entire world will hold its breath!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” -- but there is no peace! The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!