NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello peoples,

I have recently put forward a proposal for the protection of all endangered animals & plants. It is listed on the 21st page of propsals.

I would greatly appreciate the suppport firstly of that of the UN delegates so that it might get the support necesary to become a resolution.

& hopefully should the time come the majority of the UN voters.

If anyone has any questions i would love to hear them.

I prolly should have thought to post this: -

Endangered Plants and Animals
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Children of the taco

Description:

Notices: there are no measures to safe guard & protect ALL endangered plants & animals.

The following resolutions help to safe guard the protection of plants, animals & their habitats:

• Illegal logging (resolution 66)
• The Save the forests of the World (resolution 48)
• Replanting Trees (resolution 23)
• Whales (resolution 70)
• Dolphins (resolution 106)
• Oceanic Waste Dumping ( resolution 34)

Legislation protects forests & by proxy help to protect the animals in them. Water ways are protected by the oceanic waste dumping resolution. Whales & dolphins are protected under their own separate legislation. However in no way or form are endangered plants & animals protected.

In response to this I propose: -

• All endangered plants & animals shall be protected by law. They may not be hunted, harmed or killed unless there is extenuating circumstances. Commercial sale is not classed as extenuating circumstances.

• Should any of the above types of animals be killed for scientific reasons under NO circumstances shall any part of their bodies be sold for ANY reason. This is to ensure that no animals are slaughtered under the guise of being for scientific purposes while their body parts are then sold for commercial prophet.

• That areas where endangered organisms reside be identified. It is stated that ‘sites of pristine environmental significance should be protected’ in the World Heritage List (resolution 37). That each nation could pick their own areas for World Heritage status. Thus under this (my) resolution many of these areas would be made World Heritage sites in each individual nation to protect said endangered plants & animals.

• Also new breeding programs should be implemented for any endangered animals to ensure their survival for generations to come. Captive if necessary.

• National seed banks be founded & run by each individual nation so that seeds from all over the world be gathered. Should any individual species die out in the wild there would be reserves in storage.

• A committee be set up in each nation to investigate the well being of nations species to determine if they are in fact endangered.

• Each nation sets up a national environment monetary fund that is used to fund the above programs. Any money in this fund would be used to fund the above purposes & would not be used for any other purpose but environmental protection.

Criteria of endangered species: An endangered species is a species whose population is so small that it is in danger of becoming extinct or whose numbers are not breeding (in the wild) at a self-sustaining rate. Animals & plants can also be un- classified as endangered should their numbers grow to higher levels. Though this rarely occurs.

I prolly should have thought to post this: -

Endangered Plants and Animals
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Children of the taco

Description:

Notices: there are no measures to safe guard & protect ALL endangered plants & animals.

The following resolutions help to safe guard the protection of plants, animals & their habitats:

• Illegal logging (resolution 66)
• The Save the forests of the World (resolution 48)
• Replanting Trees (resolution 23)
• Whales (resolution 70)
• Dolphins (resolution 106)
• Oceanic Waste Dumping ( resolution 34)

Legislation protects forests & by proxy help to protect the animals in them. Water ways are protected by the oceanic waste dumping resolution. Whales & dolphins are protected under their own separate legislation. However in no way or form are endangered plants & animals protected.

In response to this I propose: -

• All endangered plants & animals shall be protected by law. They may not be hunted, harmed or killed unless there is extenuating circumstances. Commercial sale is not classed as extenuating circumstances.

• Should any of the above types of animals be killed for scientific reasons under NO circumstances shall any part of their bodies be sold for ANY reason. This is to ensure that no animals are slaughtered under the guise of being for scientific purposes while their body parts are then sold for commercial prophet.

• That areas where endangered organisms reside be identified. It is stated that ‘sites of pristine environmental significance should be protected’ in the World Heritage List (resolution 37). That each nation could pick their own areas for World Heritage status. Thus under this (my) resolution many of these areas would be made World Heritage sites in each individual nation to protect said endangered plants & animals.

• Also new breeding programs should be implemented for any endangered animals to ensure their survival for generations to come. Captive if necessary.

• National seed banks be founded & run by each individual nation so that seeds from all over the world be gathered. Should any individual species die out in the wild there would be reserves in storage.

• A committee be set up in each nation to investigate the well being of nations species to determine if they are in fact endangered.

• Each nation sets up a national environment monetary fund that is used to fund the above programs. Any money in this fund would be used to fund the above purposes & would not be used for any other purpose but environmental protection.

Criteria of endangered species: An endangered species is a species whose population is so small that it is in danger of becoming extinct or whose numbers are not breeding (in the wild) at a self-sustaining rate. Animals & plants can also be un- classified as endangered should their numbers grow to higher levels. Though this rarely occurs.While we are sympathetic to the plight of endangered species, our biologists tell us that species extinction is nothing new, nor even anything all that extraordinary. Millions of species came and went before technologically adept sentient species emerged, suggesting that extinction is, in some ways, nature's way of clearing out space for newer and even more evolved species.

Thus, we are concerned that, in the tumble to "stop species extinction", humanity may in fact be tampering with the workings of nature in a way that is, in fact, contrary to sound environmental practice.

Should not the criteria reflect this reality? Should we not in fact be looking for species that are "endangered", not due to natural processes of change within the world, but rather "unnatural" sentient encroachment on their habitats?

(The foregoing implies that some sentient encroachment itself may in fact be considered natural - sentients are, after all, just another group species competing for resources within the natural world. We will leave that concern aside for the moment, although we reserve the right to raise in as the debate unfolds.)

This oversight is compounded by the absolutist nature of the proposed legislation.All endangered plants & animals shall be protected by law. They may not be hunted, harmed or killed unless there is extenuating circumstances. Commercial sale is not classed as extenuating circumstances.The suggestion here is that we are trying to freeze the natural world in a state of stasis: what exists today is all that can and should exist, and from this moment onward evolution shall cease.

But that's not really what we want, now is it?

The United States of Allemande also note the mention of "extenuating circumstances". Might we know what those are, since they are not defined in this resolution?

I’d like to start firstly by stating that in no way do I wish to freeze the natural world the way it is. Yes your probably right that we should not save endangered animals that are not endangered because of humans. However I ask the question how do you determine if we humans have contributed to the massive drop in numbers of a species. How do you tell if a species is on the brink of extinction only because of humans. How do you determine that an endangered species has not been influenced enough by humans to warrant us helping it.

Lets not forget that humans as a spices have spread like a disease across this planet. I mean as a species we have existed for but a blink of eye & yet we are destroying the habitats of organisms globally. Have we left the habitats of any animals untouched, I would argue that on the surface of the planet no. Thus in my opinion at least if an organism is endangered that at least in part it is due to human activity & thus warrants our help.

Besides my proposal while desperately attempting to maintain endangered species across the world is not some how going to magically ensure the continued survival of all species. Many species globally are already doomed. I would reason that those organisms that can’t survive even with my resolution in place would be the same animals that are not well adapted enough to survive should there not be any humans.

Should this legislation be passed it would not bring to a halt extinction it would merely state that if an animal is in danger of becoming extinct that we at least give it a realistic chance at survival. Though the legislation is absolute what it proposes to do is not.

(when I stated that they may not be hunted harmed or killed I was talking about by humans) I admit I should have stated that.

As for evolution being halted I question your reasoning of this. There is variation in any given species, this variation is created by both mutation & the very nature of sexual reproduction. Those within any given spices with unfavourable genetic information will die out over generations. Those with favourable genetic information will make up a greater portion of the species population. Through these mechanisms species change.

Extinction is when an entire species dies out because no organisms within the species is alive to pass on its genetic information. Extinction is a part of evolution but without extinction evolution would still exist.

My resolution isn’t going to stop the deaths of all individual animals globally. Its aim is to try to help those that need it.

Though your points on our encroachment on other species may in many ways be true. That it is the nature of any organism to take advantage of any other type of organism. There is one fundamental problem with this. We are encroaching on almost all surface species habitats. We are becoming an extinction factor i.e. other species are dying based on there ability to survive us. We can’t afford for this to happen. Humans unfortunately may be a victim of our own success. Our numbers are ever growing & were not autotrophic (self-sustaining) were heterotrophic (we need other organisms to exist). If we successfully out compete other organism to the extent that all other organisms start to die out we die. Our environment doesn’t need us but we sure as anything need our environment. Should we not be able to preserve the global environment including a very large portion of the organisms in it then we are doomed.

Extenuating circumstances: Ummmmm. I would state that an individual has a divine right to preserve their own life. If a person had to kill an endangered species to stop it from killing them I would not have a problem with that. This would be an example but I’ll have to think about that.

P.S i hate u for making me think about that

As for evolution being halted I question your reasoning of this. There is variation in any given species, this variation is created by both mutation & the very nature of sexual reproduction. Those within any given spices with unfavourable genetic information will die out over generations. Those with favourable genetic information will make up a greater portion of the species population. Through these mechanisms species change.

Extinction is when an entire species dies out because no organisms within the species is alive to pass on its genetic information. Extinction is a part of evolution but without extinction evolution would still exist.But in fact, we see that extinction is a part of evolution. Sometimes an entire species dies out. This has happened time and again without our help, as you admit.

Evolution needs death as much as birth to function as it should. Obsolete genes get killed in the competition for resources to make room for their betters. It's cruel, but that is in fact how nature works. Who knows? It might even happen to us.
Its aim is to try to help those that need it.But which ones are they? How do we know?
Extenuating circumstances: Ummmmm. I would state that an individual has a divine right to preserve their own life. If a person had to kill an endangered species to stop it from killing them I would not have a problem with that. This would be an example but I’ll have to think about that.But now you've cut a huge exception out of your proposal. People need food; the animal's habitat might be needed as a source of food, lest said humans starve.

If you're serious about stopping humanity from driving other species into extinction, you're probably going to have to be willing to see some - and maybe a great many humans - die.

Are you willing to see that?
P.S i hate u for making me think about thatOh, well. Should I not challenge your assumptions? While that would make life easier, it would not bring you closer to Truth, and what matters more: Ease ... or Truth?

Actually, my government is a bit disappointed that the "Ballast Water" resolution wasn't mentioned. This resolution was the first UN resolution to deal with invasive species, but recommending several management practices for international shipping traffic.

Yes your probably right that we should not save endangered animals that are not endangered because of humans.

My government disagrees with this point of view. Invasive species are known to indirectly cause extensive damages to commerical enterprises that make use of native species, and also represent a threat to a diversified market.

Just as any good investment banker will point out that a diverse portfolio is the wisest way to manage your assets, a good macro-economic planner will also point out that a diverse national or regional economy is more likely to be stable and continue to grow ...

Simply put, we can all harvest clams and tomatoes, so there is something of an international "human" interest in protecting species that we might not have direct impacts on.

The key with invasive species really is that throwing up a shield like the word "direct", implies that crabs, rodents, or insects traveling in ship ballast tanks are not the responsibility of the shipping firms that bring them. This is not true. The reason species can invade other habitats is because of "human" activites.

Native species are often much better adapted to their unique environment, but tend to be threatened by invaders not because of a biological inferiority, but rather that the invaders are not subject to predation in their new environment ... a situtation which means that the invaders compete with the natives for the bonuses, but avoid the short-term costs. The end result of any species that is not checked is that its population frequently consumes its potential food in a short time, and then when a natural climate variation comes along, the invader dies ... the native is often gone, and now a predator population must find some food source.

I'd be happy to recount some stores of invasive species costs, but my government seriously objects to the idea that biological diversity is not in the best interest of this body. We firmly believe it is!

Ekkkk Mikitivity what I’m try to say is under my proposal is that all though we would be trying to save all endangered species it is not realistic to expect this to actually occur. Yes your right genetic diversity is in the best interests of the environment but I don’t think any resolution is going to be able to save all endangered species & I’m quite sure that mine is no exception to the rule. Ummm in regards to introduction of species. I agree if we introduce a species into an environment where that they couldn’t have gotten to naturally then we are still responsible for what that species goes & does afterwards.

Quote:
Yes your probably right that we should not save endangered animals that are not endangered because of humans.

When I said that I meant in evolutionary terms but as I decided that we couldn’t tell which animals would die out & which would survive had humans not existed my resolution still says the same thing. We would try to preserve ALL endangered species. If an animal was truly not meant to survive then I don’t think humans would be actually able to save it anyway (without cloning)is all that I’m trying to say.

I did briefly look over the ballast water resolution & in actual fact probably should have included it within my resolution but didn’t recognise its importance at the time I wrote mine….. So sorry about that.

In regards to you Allemande I stand by my comment of saying that people have a right to protect their own life. I’m not saying that they can destroy endangered habitats for farming of foods. I mean like a direct threat to their lives. Besides it takes along time before you can actually get food off of land that is cleared. Now to suggest that human starving to death should be able to eat endangered spicies. How often do you reckon an endangered animal is able to get enough food to sustain itself while a human living in the same area can not?

When I say animals that need our help I still mean ALL endangered species. Still state that we should try to help them all. I just think humans aren’t capable of conquering evolution. If any animal was genuinely meant to die regardless of us I sincerely doubt that we would be able to some how save them.