NationStates Jolt Archive

Preservation Of BioHeritage:

A resolution to improve the enviornment at the expense of industry


RECOGNIZING that living organisms are gifts of nature and cannot be the exclusive milieu of a privileged few,

AFFIRIMING the entitlement of all individuals to the biological legacy of their ancestors,

EXPECTING that men and women shall be secure in their agricultural industry and bodily persons,

NOTING WITH REGRET the attempt by corporations to gain unbroken dominion over the industries of agriculture, horticulture, the human body, and nature itself,

WHEREAS “natural” signifies formed by the causative processes of evolution, or selective breeding and husbanding over a historical timescale,

WHEREAS “organism” refers to a plant, animal, fungi, protist or virus species as a whole,

IT IS HEREBY DECREED that within U.N. member nations it shall be unlawful to:

1.Patent or claim exclusive right to any naturally occurring organism

2. Patent or claim exclusive right to any gene, enzyme, protein, or biochemical naturally occurring in a natural organism,

3.Criminalize, outlaw, or eradicate any naturally occurring organism, unless that organism is,

3a. medically recognized as a human pathogen,

3b. scientifically recognized as an invasive threat to a local ecosystem.

FURTHERMORE no such patents shall be recognized as valid upon the international stage, either by this body or its constituent members.

THIS SHALL NOT bar patents on organisms, genes, or biochemicals created by artificial means, nor shall it prevent the regulation or planned extinction of same.

FURTHERMORE it shall be deemed unlawful to create and release into the environment any gene, biochemical, or organism designed to bring about the extinction of a naturally occurring variety, or to, by the inevitable process of genetic drift, draw a naturally occurring organism into the inclusion of an existing patent.

Greetings,

Gene patents are a serious issue, currently undressed by international law. Under existing patent regulations everything from your grandmother's tomatoes to the pigment that colors your eyes can, and has been patented.

These patents don't stop there. Patents on genetically modified crop plants allow varieties of corn, soybean, wheat, rice, previously unpatented, to come under corporate control when genes of genetically modified varieties contaminate those belonging to an independent grower.

This is a conscious strategy by large concerns to create a new feudal system based not on land or property, but life itself.

I urge the regional delegates to bring this proposal to table (and for a moderator to remove the stupid note to moderator" at the bottom. i didn't know these things just go up there without any filtration), and to put a stop this egregious biopiracy being perpetrated by corporations like Novartis and Monsanto in the name of profit.

I thank you for your attention to this important issue.

WHEREAS “organism” refers to a plant, animal, fungi, protist or virus species as a whole,

I notice that you omitted bacteria. Is this intentional?

I'd say that the proposal reaches farther than it probably should with Article 3:

3.Criminalize, outlaw, or eradicate any naturally occurring organism, unless that organism is,

3a. medically recognized as a human pathogen,

3b. scientifically recognized as an invasive threat to a local ecosystem.

This would have some unintended consequences. To "criminalize" something is to treat it as a criminal. If we are forbidden from treating any animal as a criminal, our justice systems will not be able to function. I'd also note that an organism can cause problems in more ways than as a pathogen -- suppose a protist evolves that eats through plastics? Wild animals attacking people would have to be let alone under this proposal, seeing as they are neither pathogens nor a threat to the ecosystem.

I notice that you omitted bacteria. Is this intentional?

You're right, I did, and it wasn't. If it doesn't pass I'll submit another that includes it.

This would have some unintended consequences. To "criminalize" something is to treat it as a criminal. If we are forbidden from treating any animal as a criminal, our justice systems will not be able to function. I'd also note that an organism can cause problems in more ways than as a pathogen -- suppose a protist evolves that eats through plastics? Wild animals attacking people would have to be let alone under this proposal, seeing as they are neither pathogens nor a threat to the ecosystem.

Defining "organisim" in this proposal as the species as a whole was a bit confusing. I should have just said "species".

Still, under article 3b a nation could gas or kennel all the dangerous curs it wanted, it just couldn't outlaw Canis familiaris entire.

You've also a good point with the plastic-eating-protist example. However, we aren't lucky enough to have such things naturally extant on this planet. The only known organisms that do significant damage to products are engineered bioweapons. Under the second to last clause you could eradicate those to your heart's content (but good luck trying).

Also, it would be far more feasible to design and use materials immune to such organisms than it would be to wipe them out. Human pathogens you can eradicate because they're endemic to our bodies, a limited environment, but would you want to live in a world where a serious campaign had been undertaken to eradicate a free-ranging microorganism?

Practically speaking, the only organisms that can be brought to deliberate extinction (without sterilizing the planet altogether) are plants and animals. No government should have the right to mandate that.

IT IS HEREBY DECREED that within U.N. member nations it shall be unlawful to:
3.Criminalize, outlaw, or eradicate any naturally occurring organism, unless that organism is,
3a. medically recognized as a human pathogen,

I am not making any judgement whatsoever about the intentionality of this clause, but, unless you are broadening the definition of "pathogen" by quite a bit, this clause makes it against international law to criminalize any naturally occuring recreational drug.

Just a thought.

I am not making any judgement whatsoever about the intentionality of this clause, but, unless you are broadening the definition of "pathogen" by quite a bit, this clause makes it against international law to criminalize any naturally occuring recreational drug.

Just a thought.

Gee. Imagine that.

[actually, under real international law they're legal by exactly this sort of mechanism. you're probably just used to living in a rouge state]

Also, you may want to inform the parishioners of the Native American Church that their peyote sacrament is "recreational".

We like this proposal, but believe that a couple of tweaks (as suggested by previous posters) would really improve it. It's worth noting that it's better to draft a proposal in this forum before submitting it. Just a point for future reference.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

I think the general idea is good but the proposal itself is poorly worded and needs more flushing out.

Duly advised.

I thought o f doing so, but figured if previous resolutions had been so awful and still made it, that I was doing fine.

You're right, however. There's always room for improvement.