NationStates Jolt Archive

==PURPOSE==

To protect from extinction those species deemed "endangered" by taking the necessary steps to stop the decrease in the species' population.

==ARGUMENT==

RECOGNIZING that there are a number of unintelligent plant and animal species' which are hunted, harmed, and/or killed for the purpose(s) of food, sport, industry, or some other purpose. ALSO RECOGNIZING that without restricting said hunting, harming, and killing of said species', that certain species' for which there is high demand may decrease in population from one year to the next. CONVINCED that without restrictions, the populations of said endangered species' may continue to drop until the species has become extinct, eliminating the resource from the world, never to exist again.

In order for an unintelligent plant or animal species to be deemed "endangered", it should meet the following criteria:

It is evident that there has been a continuous, significant drop in the species' population from year to year which, if left alone, would result in the extinction of the species.
There is a demand by an intelligent people to preserve said species.
Said species is NOT a threat to the existence of another species, especially those intelligent species with basic rights.

In time, the United Nations could come to learn which unintelligent plant and animal species' may be deemed "endangered", and restrict the hunting, harming, and killing of said endangered species, thereby helping to regenerate said species' and protect species' from further and/or unnecessary depopulation. By doing so, said species' could be bred not only for purposes of regeneration, but also to fulfill the demand of species for the purpose(s) of food, sport, industry, etc.

==RESOLUTION==

This resolution seeks to:

Illegalize the hunting, injury, and/or killing any member of any species deemed "endangered".
Preserve the remaining population of the species.
Encourage the remaining population to reproduce, so that the species' population will begin to rise again.

Wow, I think this is great.

Queue! Queue! Queue! Queue! Queue! Queue! Queue! Queue!

Type: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

(helps to include those things)

I think this would be better suited to an "environmental" classification, though maybe the submitter will tell me why my supposition is incorrect.

EDIT: I spent a few more minutes really carefully reading the proposal. Moral Decency makes sense, I suppose, though I'm unlikely to feel strongly on this one way or another, at least thus far.

Type: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

(helps to include those things)Whoops. ^_^;; Forgot those. Thanks!I think this would be better suited to an "environmental" classification, though maybe the submitter will tell me why my supposition is incorrect.

EDIT: I spent a few more minutes really carefully reading the proposal. Moral Decency makes sense, I suppose, though I'm unlikely to feel strongly on this one way or another, at least thus far. I was thinking Environmental, too, but the subcategories didn't really fit an endangered species resolution. Moral Decency was suggested by someone else, and looking through the other choices, it was the one which fit best, methinks.

Have you ever thought that some animals are meant to die? You know the ones that are extremly stupid and serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the food chain (i.e Lemming).

Of course by all means, save the Bengal Tiger and other amazing animals, but go back in time for a minute when the Portugese discovered the Dodo Bird, this animal was not tasty (but hey, they had nothing else to eat).
Instead of keeping sharp and keeping its ability to fly when evloving, it got lazy and just started waddling along on the ground! Easy pickings of course to any major predator(human) which would happen upon its territoy.

It was just setting itself up for a quick death! So I finish with reiterating my point, save the animals that deserve saving, but please just let the stupid ones die off on their own.

Have you ever thought that some animals are meant to die? You know the ones that are extremly stupid and serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the food chain (i.e Lemming).
You do realise that it is just a myth that lemmings jump off cliffs en masse? I refer you to the Snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm) on the subject.

Mitsugi123,

And who has the right to decide the worth of somethings life? Absolutely no one. I think the proposal is wonderful, as is any proposal that strives to fight for the protection of life; plant, animal, or otherwise.

Mitsugi123,

And who has the right to decide the worth of somethings life? Absolutely no one. I think the proposal is wonderful, as is any proposal that strives to fight for the protection of life; plant, animal, or otherwise.

What if the proposal causes a directly negative impact on one's economy, causing one's citizens to suffer, and in some cases, die due to loss of employment? Hasn't one just decided the value of another's life?

...Portugese discovered the Dodo Bird, this animal was not tasty (but hey, they had nothing else to eat).
Instead of keeping sharp and keeping its ability to fly when evloving, it got lazy and just started waddling along on the ground! Easy pickings of course to any major predator(human) which would happen upon its territoy.

OOC:The reason it survived without flight was becuase it didn't need it, not becuase it was lazy. The very fact that it survived for hundreds of years before humans found and killed them all shows this, why evolve something you don't need? It simply had nothing that hunted it enough for it to be worried and have to adapt. Humans came along and killed it, yet more evidence of humans upsetting the natural balance, thus reinforcing this proposition. Heck, by your logic humans should be losing the ability to walk due to lazyness and eventually humans will be born without the ability to walk. /OOC
What is a Dodo bird? (:p)

Instead of keeping sharp and keeping its ability to fly when evloving, it got lazy and just started waddling along on the ground! Easy pickings of course to any major predator(human) which would happen upon its territoy.
Hang on - so the Ostrich, the Cassowary, the Emu, the Moa, the Kiwi, the Rhea, and every species of penguin is 'lazy'?

What if my country has an execptionally dangerous species running around killing my civilians? Of course we exterminate it. We don't encourage it to breed! I suggest adding something in there about that.

Have you ever thought that some animals are meant to die? You know the ones that are extremly stupid and serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the food chain (i.e Lemming).

Yes, we have. And then we thought about humanity, which serves no place in the food chain beyond causing problems and is known for disrupting the natural order on a massive scale. Wiping out a species just because of questions about its intelligence and a lack of a proper place in the food chain is a really bad idea.

Of course by all means, save the Bengal Tiger and other amazing animals, but go back in time for a minute when the Portugese discovered the Dodo Bird, this animal was not tasty (but hey, they had nothing else to eat).
Instead of keeping sharp and keeping its ability to fly when evloving, it got lazy and just started waddling along on the ground! Easy pickings of course to any major predator(human) which would happen upon its territoy.

Keep in mind said species survived thousands of years before humans and was only wiped out because of human overhunting. But keep in mind that humanity also chose to give up its natural advantages during evolution, dropping them for later developing the ability to create tools. Also, note that penguins also cannot fly and yet seem to be surviving, despite how easy pickings they are.

It was just setting itself up for a quick death! So I finish with reiterating my point, save the animals that deserve saving, but please just let the stupid ones die off on their own.

My point: It is not for you to judge which animals live and which ones die just because of natural advantages you percieve or their place in the food chain. If we were to wipe out every species who gave up their natural advantages or had questionable intelligence, we wouldn't have to worry about humans disrupting nature. Or should I not point out that the most advanced humans typically doubt the intelligence of the rest of their species?

What if my country has an execptionally dangerous species running around killing my civilians? Of course we exterminate it. We don't encourage it to breed! I suggest adding something in there about that.

He already did. Here's the quote:

Said species is NOT a threat to the existence of another species, especially those intelligent species with basic rights.

If it is a threat, kill it.

Heck, by your logic humans should be losing the ability to walk due to lazyness and eventually humans will be born without the ability to walk. /OOC

The last time I checked humans aren't born with the ability to walk.

The last time I checked humans aren't born with the ability to walk.
But then, we are born with the ability to swim. We soon lose it, but there you go.

Nice, I'll be asking my delegate to endorse.

Is there a reason that we are limiting this to plant and animal species? There are (at last count) 5 Kingdoms, of which plants and animals are only 2. (and this is only for carbon-based, Terran lifeforms - I have no knowledge of what else may be out there).

The 5 Kingdoms are:

Monera (prokaryotes - single-celled organisms that do not have a nucleus)
Protoctsita (organisms that fit into none of the other kindoms: such as nucleated algae {including seaweeds}, flagellated water molds, slime molds and slime nets, and protozoa)
Fungi (develop from spores)
Plantae (develop from an embryo)
Animalia (develop from a blastula)

(information from Margulis & Schwartz "The Five Kingdoms" pub. Freeman 1982)

Is there a reason that we are limiting this to plant and animal species? There are (at last count) 5 Kingdoms, of which plants and animals are only 2. (and this is only for carbon-based, Terran lifeforms - I have no knowledge of what else may be out there).

There is a simple reason: Many viruses, bacteria, and funguses are extremely harmful, and quite a few are too widespread. It takes a concentrated effort to wipe out the majority of them, and most nations are not willing to put out that much time and money just to be rid of mushrooms or a bit of mold. And when they do put out the effort, it's usually because it is a percieved danger.

Basically, when I advised it, I was counting on human laziness.

Have you ever thought that some animals are meant to die? You know the ones that are extremly stupid and serve no purpose in the grand scheme of the food chain (i.e Lemming).

Of course by all means, save the Bengal Tiger and other amazing animals, but go back in time for a minute when the Portugese discovered the Dodo Bird, this animal was not tasty (but hey, they had nothing else to eat).
Instead of keeping sharp and keeping its ability to fly when evloving, it got lazy and just started waddling along on the ground! Easy pickings of course to any major predator(human) which would happen upon its territoy.

It was just setting itself up for a quick death! So I finish with reiterating my point, save the animals that deserve saving, but please just let the stupid ones die off on their own.


intelligence can be very subjective.

Ever notice, the cuter something is, the more likely it is to be on the "endangered species" list?

We like our animals cute.

Polar bears are distinctly "uncute" - So sayeth our propaganda. We are more then happy to display them as bloodthirsty beasts in every venue - which, indeed we do...

I like this Proposal.
One comment though. There should be something about being allowed to eat endangered animals in times of extreme famine.

okay, so there's a day left for this to get the 6% delegate approval... out of the needed 149-150 approvals required from the 2,400+ delegates, this proposal has 13... *blank stare* It's as if delegates don't even check the proposals! I mean, are there really only 13 people for protecting endangered species? How do all these other proposals make it to vote?

I don't think they do unless you petition them. Even then they can't be bothered most of the time...

okay, so there's a day left for this to get the 6% delegate approval... out of the needed 149-150 approvals required from the 2,400+ delegates, this proposal has 13... *blank stare* It's as if delegates don't even check the proposals! I mean, are there really only 13 people for protecting endangered species? How do all these other proposals make it to vote?
You pretty much require a strong TG campaign to ensure that enough delegates even look at a proposal, let alone approve it. I would suggest keeping a list of delegates who approved it this time, then TGing them when you next submit, and so on and so forth.
While it seems to take forever, it probably will work in the long run. Believe me, I know. That's what had to happen for Habeas Corpus to get up (about 4 or five months, over 10 submissions).

<OOC>
<rant>
Am I the only one who thinks that's a little unfair to the people who write these things up? I mean, if you're going to play the game, play. But if you're going to sit on your derriere and do nothing, then let someone else take your spot. In my humble opinion, it's a delegate's responsibility to look at the proposals. It can't be that much more time-consuming than the normal 'issues' each nation gets every day (or however often they get them; I get them every day). Whether you play NationStates dead serious or just for laughs, the key to this game running well is participation.
</rant>
</OOC>