NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, respected members of the UN. We here in Threedland have only recently joined the UN but taken the time to review some of the past resolutions passed by it. United Nations resolution 2 (Scientific freedom) was a well meaning piece of legislation, but has unfairly given the scientific "edge" to the richest countries in the world, or at least the ones to whom money is no object compared to the technology they might gain. Any scientist who researching something important may be lured to another country, perhaps even taking vital intelligence to them. Can you imagine, your countries leading scientists all leaving in a short time-frame, halting all scientific research in you country, because your chief rival has a better vacation package? Or worse yet, designing weapons of mass destruction for some insane dictator who oppresses his people in order to pool up the money to aquire your scientists. The scientific freedom resolution is, as I said before, well meaning but need to be rewritten. That is why I propose that we repeal UN resolution 2 and replace it with a more, well thought out version. Thank you for your time and I hope you will seriously review this proposal.

Resolution 2 doesn't cause that problem. We tell countries they can't restrict scientific research. Countries, however, may make an offer to research something more lucrative if they decide they want to support it - but if resolution 2 wasn't in place, they would still support it so it would still be researched and they still would have the same lucrative offers.

:pushes his own proposal:

I recently attempted to equalize scientific progress throughout all nations via the proposal "The United Nations Space Research Station", which would have allowed all nations access to research conducted in a space station to be constructed by UN member nations. Unfortunately it failed to reach quorum, but I'm encouraged by the fact that it reached 52 approvals without a TG campaign. The night before it expired I attempted a last minute TG campaign, having been busy before, but to no avail. I'll resubmit it in a day or two, this time with a decent TG campaign. I'd appreciate your approvals.

Resolution 2 doesn't cause that problem. We tell countries they can't restrict scientific research. Countries, however, may make an offer to research something more lucrative if they decide they want to support it - but if resolution 2 wasn't in place, they would still support it so it would still be researched and they still would have the same lucrative offers.


Resolution 2 states that reasearch will not be inhibited, but also that scientists can research in whatever country the choose. Presumably, trade and\or sales of technology and data would increase, but only if we assume that the nations who posess the scientists who have the knowledge actually are willing to share it. Even if the scientists themselves decide to sell or share technology whats to stop a government from just making him or her dissapear?

You should keep in mind that most research is no longer done by lone scientists scribbling notes in tiny apartments. These days, packs of specialized researchers work in government or privately sponsored facilities with all sorts of precisely calibrated equipment, pooling the information that they collect to be thoroughly analyzed and digested. Resolution 2 is not going to cause the guy from some impoverished country to leave for some rich nation and take the secret of Georg Accelerators with him, simply because the country that he would have been confined to without Resolution 2 would not have been able to pay for the precision calculometer and the half dozen graduate students that he would have needed in order to discover Georg Acceleration in the first place. As it is now, there isn’t any net loss in research.

Resolution 2 states that reasearch will not be inhibited, but also that scientists can research in whatever country the choose. Presumably, trade and\or sales of technology and data would increase, but only if we assume that the nations who posess the scientists who have the knowledge actually are willing to share it. Even if the scientists themselves decide to sell or share technology whats to stop a government from just making him or her dissapear?

The only way this would change is if the government of one nation pretty much held a scientist prisoner in their nation. A scientist almost always goes where the money is - and when he/she doesn't, it's because a dictatorship is holding them there.

The only way this would change is if the government of one nation pretty much held a scientist prisoner in their nation. A scientist almost always goes where the money is - and when he/she doesn't, it's because a dictatorship is holding them there.

Exactly. But any number or type of nation could practice this, not just ones in which power is in the hands of a supreme dictator.

RESOLUTION 2
Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.
------------------------------
To me the statement 'peaceful and responsible' scientists... can research by their own accord.. from the resolution would mean that:

If they are 'peacefull and responsible' they would not be working for wealth for themselves but for the health of the world they live in... so it would not matter where they worked... This would only let them do it where they might find the best minds and resources to help them better the world..

Thus what is wrong with it.. Any scientist not 'peaceful and responsible' needs to be dealt with.. If you hire under contract a scientists to solve some problem and he finds a solution then runs off to another nation and sales it for more than you might give him... He's not 'peaceful or responsible' just a common theif who needs to be tried for crimes and put into a prison... so what is your problem with this resolution it simply allows 'peaceful and responsible' scientists to exist in peace wherever they might need to exist.. to better our world.. The rest will be in prisons where they righly belong if they steal from the hand that feeds them...

There is nothing here that says my nation can't go to a 'peaceful and responsible' scientist and make them an offer to come to thier nation and under contract solve some problem they may need solved, so they can pay more than you can for him. If you have him under contract to work for you and his coming to me would violate that contract then we will send the crook back to you... We don't want a person we can't trust and if he would steal and cheat from/on you then he's not to be trusted.. Thus is not 'peacefull and responsible' so is in no way covered by any rights given by R2. which I see none given crooks.. so put them away for a long time....

Exactly. But any number or type of nation could practice this, not just ones in which power is in the hands of a supreme dictator.

Ah - but you see. As you're trying to pass a repeal based upon a wish to restrict the freedom of scientists to move from one nation to another, this UN is continually trying to figure out a good law to make it so that anyone who wants to leave any nation has the right to do so. If you're argument is that you want the right to hold your scientists in your country against their will so that they can get you the technology they're researching for you......I'm not going to sympathize with you, and I think the same is true for most people on this board.

Ah - but you see. As you're trying to pass a repeal based upon a wish to restrict the freedom of scientists to move from one nation to another, this UN is continually trying to figure out a good law to make it so that anyone who wants to leave any nation has the right to do so. If you're argument is that you want the right to hold your scientists in your country against their will so that they can get you the technology they're researching for you......I'm not going to sympathize with you, and I think the same is true for most people on this board.

You misunderstand my intentions, I merely point out what other countries might do. Hypothetically, of course.

I will not support a repeal on the basis of "this means scientists will be going to where the money is". Whether this resolution was there or not, scientists would be going where the money is, and the only way to stop them would be to infringe on what I consider a universal right to emigrate.

And that, precisely is what the problem is. Scientists will generally go where the money is. This resolution only further enforces that. A "better" solution would to have some kind of joint research program for, and including UN member nations, while simultaneously passing resolutions pertaining to the ethics and living conditions of those countries(And support programs for poorer nations who cant help the people themselves) . It would research inoffensive things like medicine, alternative fuel sources, etc. Things most everyone like and support. The findings would be shared freely to UN members. The new human rights resolutions will keep out malevolent dictatorships or other governments that deliberately oppress their populations. Fortunately the community is quite good at those human rights proposals(though many are repealed). I rather liked Fatus Maximuses UN space station proposal.

You don't need to repeal Scientific Freedom to do that! Unless you intend for all individual nations within the UN to abolish their individual research programs (which I promise you, will fail MISERABLY in the General Assembly), there is no reason to abolish scientific freedom. Just set up a UN run research organization. In fact, a similar idea was under discussion in the first few days after I got here.

Once again you misunderstand. If a separate proposal for this joint research program were passed, would it solve the problems of the scientific freedom resolution? No. They would actually conflict, because you would have one saying, "investigate what you want, and worldwide development be damned" and another saying "hey, lets all work together on these common problems and all reap the benefits". The answer is to fix the problems with Res. 2 and add in these new programs within the appeal.

So instead of letting them work in this country or another, we're going to FORCE them to work as part of a UN coalition. Or are you asking for all nation's individual scientific process to be made available to all other UN members?

I'm still not seeing any logical position that is supportable.

If I'm still hitting empty space, why don't you actually spell out EXACTLY what you want - because right now you have ZIP that's actually supportable.

Ok pal, calm down. You don't have to be rude to attempt to get your point across, whatever it may be.You see, your confusion is partially my fault for not meticulously spelling out most every possible detail. I should'nt have assumed that blanks could be filled in with logical ideas by the readers own mind. I really hate repeating my self more than 2 times but I will. You do not understand what I am saying. At least not fully. First, does it make sense to have the world population of scientists work on 1 thing. Unless this thing is the eminent total anihilation of the human race, the obvious answer is no. Did I ever say this is what I think should happen? No. Second, did I allude to in any way that the accumulation of scientific research of any given UN nation would be divulged to all of the rest.? Once again, no. I DID say that the from the joint research program should be given to all. Well, look at that. I got a bit upset myself. Forgive me for my INSUFFERABLE rudeness. Really.

First, I apologize if my last post seemed rude.

Second - do you actually have an idea of what you want for a replacement? I've thought of......5-10 possibilities, all of which (as I said) are unsupportable. If you don't have an idea, I can't support this repeal as I still see this resolution as a preferable resolution. If you actually have something, we'll see if this resolution actually needs to repealed for it - I doubt it unless you want to abolish national research programs in favor of an international research program (again, unsupportable on my part and will get slaughtered on the floor).

Funny that this discussions comes up, as I was just in the process of writing a resolution which extends and clarifies Resolution #2, hopefully in a way that doesn't require a repeal. This is it:

The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING the passing of Resolution #2: Scientific Freedom,

NOTING WITH REGRET the lack of concrete protection this resolutions provides for scientists,

ALSO NOTING that this resolution poorly defines science and scientists worthy of protection,

CONSIDERING the advantages of greater scientific freedom, such as economic prosperity, but also greater insight in how the world works, as well as possible advances in medical science,

ACKNOWLEDGING the value of religion, which however should be clearly seperate from science,

1. AFFIRMS the Freedom of Science as a fundamental right accross UN member nations,

2. DEFINES science as the system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methods, i.e. methodically trying to falsify hypotheses based on objective experimenting which can be reproduced,

3. MANDATES that no scientist may be persecuted for conducting scientific research, publishing scientific research or reading scientific publications,

4. EXEMPTS from general UN protection from clause 3 scientific research that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;

but leaves it up to individual member nations to deal with these sciences.

5. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that through science, the lives of UN citizens will improve in the centuries to come.

Note that this is only a first draft, and comments are welcome.

ARRGH! Look Forgotten, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Because I favor a joint program does not mean I want to abolish countries individual programs. Ok. Now that's clarified. Grooot Gouda, your proposal is pretty sound. I assume that by saying

EXEMPTS from general UN protection from clause 3 scientific research that:
a. is acquired through methods that violate human or animal rights according to UN or national legislation;
b. is aimed at warfare or otherwise damaging persons or animals;
c. depends on "divine beings" as explanations for phenomena;

but leaves it up to individual member nations to deal with these sciences.

You mean that nations are responsible for their own weapon research. Great.
I really like this proposal. Just the 1 suggestion, maybe adding on a program of joint research for... well you read my earlier posts. Or don't add anything. Its fine as it is, a joint reserch program could actually be a separate resolution.

By saying that, I want to say that some research isn't worthy of protection by the UN, but if individual nations want to conduct it, then this resolution doesn't forbid it (because nations are bound to misread it as not protected == not allowed).

ARRGH! Look Forgotten, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Because I favor a joint program does not mean I want to abolish countries individual programs. Ok.

I'm not at all misinterpreting you. I told you specifically that there is no reason to remove resolution 2 UNLESS you were to abolish individual national research under the reasons you listed to abolish resolution 2. Your arguments are confusing, and half the time, circular or contradicted in your next post. I'm having a very difficult time placing what you're trying to do - and you STILL haven't actually said it.

Groot Gouda, that's a beautiful possible replacement for resolution 2.

Ok forgotten, before I respond to your previous post, answer me this. Is it possible that you understand my opinions better than me? Just ponder that for a moment. Unless you are either insane or supremely arrogant, the answer you came up with would be no. Now, assuming you did answer no, how can you say that you did not misinterpret me? I understand what I write perfectly. Therefore it would be up to me to reserve judgement on whether or not someone understands my arguments. WHEW. It feels really great to vent. Now to the actual issue. I have not alluded to disbanding the national reserch of any nation. I am not be the best person at expressing my ideas through typing a few paragraphs a day, I prefer to discuss things in the most time efficient manner yet devised, talking. This is but one of my personal failings. If you can't understand, forgive me. I'm sure its my fault. But there is no reason you shouldn't understand that I have said that I "like" (I.E. "support") Groot Goudas proposal. That pretty much explains my position.

Believe it or not, yes, and I have proved this to people before. I certainly have proven to people that I was talking EXACTLY what they were thinking of and they didn't realize it. As I said, you have not said what you want, I have driven you around in every LOGICAL circle that could exist on this issue, and you just keep claiming I don't have a clue. Try again.

Believe it or not, yes, and I have proved this to people before. I certainly have proven to people that I was talking EXACTLY what they were thinking of and they didn't realize it. As I said, you have not said what you want, I have driven you around in every LOGICAL circle that could exist on this issue, and you just keep claiming I don't have a clue. Try again.

You see, the only way you would be talking about exactly what I was thinking about and I didn't realize it would be if you didn't express yourself clearly. Would you call comprehending half of my posts and then using absurd logic to ask essentially the same question several times over "chasing me around every logical circle"? I can only guess from your obsession with being right and the insane amount of time you spend on forum that you are either a retiree, an unemployed adult or a minor with WAY too much time on his hands. I'm not insulting you, I myself fall into the minor category, though with school starting tomorrow, I will be too busy to even spend my usually 10 minutes browsing the forum, much less all day. Read my last post for my opinion on this subject. Really, If you have to ask more questions after that ... Well then I forgive you. Its not your fault.

And now, A personal message. To lazy to send a proper PM (non forgottenlands people avert thy eyes!)

Have you ever read that everyone percieves everyone else as possessing varying degrees of insanity, because they don't have the same opinion and don't understand each other completely? No need to answer. See that last sentence was a joke, but the insanity one wasn't. What we had here seemed to be a mutual inability to grasp the others argument. I say that to give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously I think you are slightly insane. You probably think of me as insane too, though more of a kind of compulsive finger snapper than a guy who gos straight for your eyes. You know what I mean by this last paragraph. And if you didn't, its really all the funnier. Nice debate. I Think I won. Just as You think you won. Just to clarify I support everything in Groot Goudas proposal. I'll be back... whenever my next vacation from school comes up. Weekends don't count. Homework. Ugh. (Walks off into the sunset)

You see, the only way you would be talking about exactly what I was thinking about and I didn't realize it would be if you didn't express yourself clearly. Would you call comprehending half of my posts and then using absurd logic to ask essentially the same question several times over "chasing me around every logical circle"? I can only guess from your obsession with being right and the insane amount of time you spend on forum that you are either a retiree, an unemployed adult or a minor with WAY too much time on his hands.

Actually - I work a 8/5 job and will for the rest of this week and half of next week - then I get a week off followed by a nice long 8 months of University Education. It's not what we do in real life but instead how we divy up our time outside of work/school/etc. I devote most of my freetime to NS.

I'm not insulting you, I myself fall into the minor category, though with school starting tomorrow, I will be too busy to even spend my usually 10 minutes browsing the forum, much less all day. Read my last post for my opinion on this subject. Really, If you have to ask more questions after that ... Well then I forgive you. Its not your fault.

And now, A personal message. To lazy to send a proper PM (non forgottenlands people avert thy eyes!)

Have you ever read that everyone percieves everyone else as possessing varying degrees of insanity, because they don't have the same opinion and don't understand each other completely? No need to answer. See that last sentence was a joke, but the insanity one wasn't. What we had here seemed to be a mutual inability to grasp the others argument. I say that to give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously I think you are slightly insane. You probably think of me as insane too, though more of a kind of compulsive finger snapper than a guy who gos straight for your eyes. You know what I mean by this last paragraph. And if you didn't, its really all the funnier. Nice debate. I Think I won. Just as You think you won. Just to clarify I support everything in Groot Goudas proposal. I'll be back... whenever my next vacation from school comes up. Weekends don't count. Homework. Ugh. (Walks off into the sunset)

If someone can see where I screwed up, I'd love to hear it - 'cause it certainly went over my head.