NationStates Jolt Archive

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: In these times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked, a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction. It is with these concerns we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, UNCoESB
Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most required.
Article 2:Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.
Article 3:Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.
Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.
Article 5:Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB.
The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable.

Members of these United Nations, I give you the proposed Conservation of wildlife bill that has been approved by the delegates, And currently is at Vote by the General assembly.
This is the Official thread and the author will not respond to comments regarding UNCoESB on any other thread. We would also appreciate if you take the time to respond to our poll how you voted in the matter.
Thank You.
Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator for the Delegacy of the Realm of Hibernia.

I've just finished a good thorough read of the proposal. It has an idealistic tone that I tend to admire. But Canada6 feels that it will achieve more consensus approval if it's idealistic tone was turned down a few notches.

For example.

In article 2 it states:
"International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event."

And later on in article 7 it states:

"Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB. "

It is the belief of Canada6 that given the number of species that are dangerously close to world extinction that unfortunately it will be impossible within a short to medium term scale to consider total bans as a rare event.

Regardless Canada6 expresses it's full fledged support to this resolution.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel have voted FOR this resolution, as we think it's necessary to protect endangered species, and also we think this proposal is nicely balanced. Thanks for the good work.

It is the belief of Canada6 that given the number of species that are dangerously close to world extinction that unfortunately it will be impossible within a short to medium term scale to consider total bans as a rare event.
How right you are. It should have read that ultimately if the UNCoESB is followed by the nations in the long term it would be a rarity to have an endangered species. However yet again limitations on the amount of charachters one can use in a proposal affected this proposal as there are many parts of it i would have rather were fleshed out.
After trimming 160 charachters what you see i am afraid is what you get, however i am of the opinion that the proposal is as good as i could have delivered given this concern.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel have voted FOR this resolution, as we think it's necessary to protect endangered species, and also we think this proposal is nicely balanced. Thanks for the good work.
Thank you for your support and Kind words.

The Empire of Tajiri_san has also voted FOR this proposal

The Free Land of CTerryland wholeheartedly supports this proposal.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra observes that this resolution does not specifying limits on which species can be protected. It seems that the attempted eradication of a disease would be illegal. This applies not only to diseases of humans, but to diseases of species which may be endangered.

Furthermore, it would be illegal to eradicate a disease-carrying parasite (causing it to become extinct) in order to prevent the extinction of its host species. In light of these problems, we regret that we must vote against this resolution.

Safalra: why would the UN choose to specify harmful bacteria as protected species?

Safalra: why would the UN choose to specify harmful bacteria as protected species?

OOC: A few months ago a paper was published (in Nature, I think) identifying cases where an endemic (that is, species-specific) parasite has been eradicated in the process of saving its host species. One particular case was that of a species of American eagle, all the individuals of which were taken into captivity to prevent their extinction. They were treated for ticks, and a species of tick found only on that species of eagle was made extinct in the process. The scientists that published the paper pointed out that the infection is usually not fatal, and argued that 'unattractive' species such as parasitic ticks should not be ignored in favour of 'attractive' species such as eagles and tigers.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra observes that this resolution does not specifying limits on which species can be protected
That is correct. The limits are not specified as with the vast numbers of species of animal in the NS world there wouldnt be the room to do so within the proposal. That has been left for the Executive to decide when presented with a case of possible extinction.
It seems that the attempted eradication of a disease would be illegal. This applies not only to diseases of humans, but to diseases of species which may be endangered.
It appears you have not read the proposal or missunderstood its wording. on reading its discription you will find it states clearly that it pertains to wildlife.
"a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction" as such Insects and species outside of the classification of animals, such as bacteria and viruses are not covered by the new bill
Furthermore, it would be illegal to eradicate a disease-carrying parasite (causing it to become extinct) in order to prevent the extinction of its host species. In light of these problems, we regret that we must vote against this resolution. answered above.

How come this homo sapiens species, that has been here for less than a million years, thinks that the species it existed with should survive forever? Won't natural selection pick those species that are most strong and resilient, such as the cockroaches that swarm all over the buildings of my cities. So plentiful is the cockroach, that my scientific teams are now devising a way to fit cameras of their backs so that I may keep an eye on my more rebellious citizens. Of course, humans are a most destructive species.

I would like to learn more about Article 1. How does a species get listed as endangered? As the executive can "control funding and see it is used where it is most required" can it just vote itself more and more funds without end? (Not that this is a bad thing, my nation has done this when the common good required it.) Can countries go to the executive and bring species to their attention that should be listed as endangered?

If an endangered species is living on private property, or perhaps in desperate need, may I use all the powers necessary to save the species and go onto anyone's property, without international upheaval over my methods? The dissidents of my country, who care little for the people and animals of their nation, must be stopped. :mp5:

Anyway good bill. I shall probably vote for it.

Normaly this is the type of resolution that PsiOps would vote for
But as it is our country has extreemely high taxes right no and cannot aford more burdens on the people

"a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction"
as such Insects and species outside of the classification of animals, [...] are not covered by the new bill answered above.

'Animal' refers to any memeber of the kingdom Animalia. The phylum Arthropoda, which includes all insects (such as the parasitic ticks I mention earlier) is part of the kingdom Animalia. Therefore the resolution does cover the endemic (and hence endangered) parasites of endangered species.

I request a list of all endangered animals so we may begin removing them now; to save us the trouble of removing them secretly in the future.

The last thing we want is to have the most of any of those animals in our country.

This resolution will only lead to landowners and developers making sure there are no listed animals in the area, after the fact.


And as I stated before, these types of measures have never worked for the animals, only against people.

I disagree with this bill solely on the issue of local populations being categorized as endangered despite the existence of larger, thriving populations in other locations.

While this may seem to be a noble cause, it has the creates the potential for abuse. The governments affected by this legislation will have an uncanny control over land development by using this clause as a loophole.

The governments can halt land development on a piece of property simply by observing an animal in the area that does not normally occur there. Even if the given species isn't techinically endangered on a worldwide scale, the government has the ability to control private properties by saying that a species is endangered on a local scale.

While this may not make a difference to a nation where the government controls all the lands, for those nations where property can be privately owned, this law could potentially encroach upon individual freedom.

I urge you not to vote for this law.

'Animal' refers to any memeber of the kingdom Animalia. The phylum Arthropoda, which includes all insects (such as the parasitic ticks I mention earlier) is part of the kingdom Animalia. Therefore the resolution does cover the endemic (and hence endangered) parasites of endangered species.
If indeed your "Tic" is covered by the UNCoESB, The Executive will decide with the evidence at hand what steps must be taken. Your example is typical of a very rare occurence where a member of the insect community is close to an extinction. Your arguement justifies the Executive and leaving the decisions to each individual case. Life is full of hard choices and if forced to choose between the endangered species the executive would choose the Eagle of your example and not the Tic. The reasoning behind that decision is purely logical as the eagle would be able to live with out the tic but as a parasite the tic would not be able to live without its host, The eagle.
Again if i had stressed this point in the proposal it would exceed the charachter Limit imposed and so as to not require such intricate details, the executive has been empowered.

Article 7 troubles me, in that it implies that the UN may impose bans on the hunting of certain species, not specifying if the UN could impose "criminal charges" on those who hunt a forbidden species within a nation's sovereign borders.

Nevertheless, the author's invaluable support for my "Save the Dolphins!" repeal far outweighs any negative impacts this proposal may have, and I have thus voted in favor.

No more telegrams about how much I hate the environment please. :D

(Momentary hijack - if people could help Wiki the UN debate on Repeal PoDA, I'd be much obliged.)

I have to say, I share others' concerns on Article 7. However, I am not aware that the UN has the ability to press criminal charges - but rather to direct individual nations to do so. If I am wrong on this, please forgive any confusion caused.

www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html)

Begin here for starters...

For the guy that wanted a list of endangered species. When you remove them ship them to the Disputed Territories of Jumbo Paper Clips.

I request a list of all endangered animals so we may begin removing them now; to save us the trouble of removing them secretly in the future.

The last thing we want is to have the most of any of those animals in our country.

This resolution will only lead to landowners and developers making sure there are no listed animals in the area, after the fact.


And as I stated before, these types of measures have never worked for the animals, only against people.
What are you talking about?
UNCoESB allows hunting and fishing as long as it is with conservation in mind so that the animal that serves your lands as meat or game will continue to do so for the coming generations.
UNCoESB is designed to end any singular resolution regarding the protection of a species thus cutting out the expence of multiple resolutions with multiple committees and the funding of those committees and their agencies and affiliates.
UNCoESB gives direct control of conservation to the Individual nations monitored by the UN executive and the non governmental environmental Agencies whom are privately funded.

UNCoESB simply makes more sense and is a practical solution to the problem of conservation.

May i quote the ex UN member of Krioval......
..................That said, we're part of nature, not some supernatural (or "extranatural") being whose actions don't affect us along with the rest of the world. Sure, I think we should stop with the rampant deforestation and pollution, but less because some dolphins or owls might die and more because it's in our own best interests to maintain some semblance of an environment that supports human population.

While this may seem to be a noble cause, it has the creates the potential for abuse. The governments affected by this legislation will have an uncanny control over land development by using this clause as a loophole.

It has good intentions, that is all that need be required. Why do you hate the environment so much? Do you not see that the will of the people requires that their government be able to act, even at the expense of the 'right to private property.' We must maintain sustainable development, if not for the sake of the environment, then for ourselves. Governments need to have powers to fulfill the will of the people and protect the environment, not fall prey to special interest groups that would wish to take that away. Nobody complains of the 'uncanny' control of property by developers who may sacrifice the collective good of the environment for personal profit.

www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html)

Begin here for starters...

For the guy that wanted a list of endangered species. When you remove them ship them to the Disputed Territories of Jumbo Paper Clips.
For those of you out there who insist NS = real Life this post is for you.

The Home Nation of Venerable Libertarians has a thriving Population of Dodo Birds, a large population of whooly Mammoth and far too many Blue Huggy bears!

The Blue huggy bear is our national Animal and can be found singing its songs in our dense lush forrests. As it is our animal of National Importance that may supply a reason for its large numbers here.

The simple point i am trying to make here is.....

This Is Nation States! This is not real Life. Please keep your real life reference literature out of this thread as it is not valid here.
Thank you.

:eek: I was only trying to help! :(
Begins balling

:mp5: You'll pay! I swear to it! :sniper: :mad:
Begins putting bombs and bioweapons on cockroaches instead of cameras

We have spoken out for this resolution in the past and continue to do so.

Hopefully this resolution prevents any more crap proposals like Protection of Dolphins in the future.

:eek: I was only trying to help! :(
Begins balling

:mp5: You'll pay! I swear to it! :sniper: :mad:
Begins putting bombs and bioweapons on cockroaches instead of cameras
Apologies to you JPC's but it had to be pointed out for both sides of the arguement :D

The GCEX Memberstate of 3060C0 has voted NAY on this proposal, as our industry has already been crippled by several UN proposals, and I say who cares about the environment when we could be rolling in manufactured goods.

Just a quick edit: If people want to protect a specific animal, leave it to the civilian sector, and leave government politics out of it

For those of you out there who insist NS = real Life this post is for you.

The Home Nation of Venerable Libertarians has a thriving Population of Dodo Birds, a large population of whooly Mammoth and far too many Blue Huggy bears!

The Blue huggy bear is our national Animal and can be found singing its songs in our dense lush forrests. As it is our animal of National Importance that may supply a reason for its large numbers here.

The simple point i am trying to make here is.....

This Is Nation States! This is not real Life. Please keep your real life reference literature out of this thread as it is not valid here.
Thank you.



I'm glad to see you have an abundance of Blue huggy bears. In my country they are almost wiped out due to them singing and dancing on the highways. This means they are an endangered animal and will cause us nothing but grief.

We forsee private landowners killing the bears and dumping the bodies, because they know if one is on their property; their property value will be worth nothing since it won't be able to be developed on.

We had concerns over our Spotted Keeblers. Logging of old growth forest was endangering their homes, so we stopped logging old growth forest. Later we discovered the Keeblers thrived in second growth forests, so in our shortsightedness we banned logging on second growth forests as well. We started importing our lumber from other countries which cost alot more and created massive job loss.

Needless to say it didn't take us long to realize that with good silviculture practices the logging industry and the Keeblers could coexist together.

UN control of these matters are nothing more than a "look how good we are" pat on the back. Although, I do think the heart of this proposition is in the right place, but the plan is way off base and will cause far more harm than good.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra observes that this resolution does not specifying limits on which species can be protected. It seems that the attempted eradication of a disease would be illegal. This applies not only to diseases of humans, but to diseases of species which may be endangered.

Furthermore, it would be illegal to eradicate a disease-carrying parasite (causing it to become extinct) in order to prevent the extinction of its host species. In light of these problems, we regret that we must vote against this resolution.


Bacteria don't have species, they have strains. No problem there.


As for Arthropoda, the mosquito is probably the most, serious, as it comes to disease transfer.


And I believe we've learned through trial and error, that the best way to handle that is to treat the cause and not the effect.

MEANING, it's too hard to "eradicate" the mosquito, so instead we do things to repel them and we do things to avoid stagnate water.

The GCEX Memberstate of 3060C0 has voted NAY on this proposal, as our industry has already been crippled by several UN proposals, and I say who cares about the environment when we could be rolling in manufactured goods.
Sir, With respect this bill aiims to save your nation money due to the fact that once it is a resolution we can repeal two others on the grounds of redundancy and prevent a flood of resolutions from ever becoming resolutions on the very same grounds.
As an industrialist looking for efficiencies from the UN, You would be crazy to vote anything other than for the proposal to be ratified

The GCEX Memberstate of 3060C0 has voted NAY on this proposal, as our industry has already been crippled by several UN proposals, and I say who cares about the environment when we could be rolling in manufactured goods.
Nicely said jerk. You're right, what does the environment do for you? Besides of course providing the fundamental energy to run you manufacturing centers, and also to provide the raw materials for your products. Maybe you were talking synthetic? Fine, where do the materials for synthetics come from? The EARTH DUMMY!! Go ahead, run with that thought, who cares about the environment that keeps us alive, maybe once you run out of resources, you can just steal from someone else, right? See how far you get with that idea of corporate importantism. :mad: :mp5:

With no respect whatsoever,
Spoonsavers

(Sorry libertarians, I don't take that crap as well as you do. Also sorry for the that to everyone out there who isn't a jerk and didn't want to read that.)

Nicely said jerk. You're right, what does the environment do for you? Besides of course providing the fundamental energy to run you manufacturing centers, and also to provide the raw materials for your products. Maybe you were talking synthetic? Fine, where do the materials for synthetics come from? The EARTH DUMMY!! Go ahead, run with that thought, who cares about the environment that keeps us alive, maybe once you run out of resources, you can just steal from someone else, right? See how far you get with that idea of corporate importantism. :mad: :mp5:

With no respect whatsoever,
Spoonsavers

(Sorry libertarians, I don't take that crap as well as you do. Also sorry for the that to everyone out there who isn't a jerk and didn't want to read that.)


Now now, the UN cannot work if the members only say things you want to hear.

Ausserland has voted for this worthy proposal. We thank the author for the effort and careful thought that went into drafting it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Please keep your real life reference literature out of this thread as it is not valid here.
While it is true that real-life reference material may not be used in the text of the proposal/resolution, there is no such limit in the discussion threads. Real life references are useful for illustrative purposes, and statistics garnered in the so-called 'real world' are typically more valid than anything captured by nations in the worlds of NationStates.

If you choose to observe Venerable libertarians's request, that's fine; but be aware that it carries no force or rule of law here.

The Palentine wishes to express its support for this legislation. It is not perfect, and like my regional delegate I have some qualms about article 7. However Venerable Libertarians has reassured me in the forun leading up to this vote that Hunting and fishing will still be allowed as long as conservation mesures are in place. We have many sportsmen in the Palentine, and contrary to some tree hugging animal rights lovers , they have no desire to depouplate and kill off entire species. The hunters and fishermen have no desire to loose their hobby. After all it allows them to get away from the old ball and chain...err their wives. :D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador

The Republic of Teruchev gives its support. This is a resolution of high international importance that does not unduly encroach upon domestic sovereignty, while still retaining a measure of effectiveness so as to not render it ineffectual.

Steve Perry
President
Republic of Teruchev

Nicely said jerk. You're right, what does the environment do for you? Besides of course providing the fundamental energy to run you manufacturing centers, and also to provide the raw materials for your products. Maybe you were talking synthetic? Fine, where do the materials for synthetics come from? The EARTH DUMMY!! Go ahead, run with that thought, who cares about the environment that keeps us alive, maybe once you run out of resources, you can just steal from someone else, right? See how far you get with that idea of corporate importantism. :mad: :mp5:

You mean well and are somewhat correct however, gold and silver and other inorganic resources will not be affected by the existence of biological life. Unless you are burning biomass. Also natural gas, coal, and oil are biological, but we can't go back and time and kill the organisms that made them. And of course, some species thrive in human mess, like bacteria and insects (not covered by this resolution.) Screaming "The EARTH DUMMY!!" doesn't quite make sense because "the earth" would exist even if all life on it were wiped out (although we wouldn't like it much.) However, we don't really need the cute fuzzy animals that take up the endangered species list, we need the bacteria. Bacteria could be genetically altered to create any organic thing we need from nature (this is looking into the future though.) The environment doesn't keep the human species alive, humans keep humans alive. This resolution will empower of government of Jumbo Paper Clips to take the land of dissidents who hate the environment and the will of the people. Your governments will also similarily be empowered, so you should support this bill which gives more power to the people (the government) against those as that resist the will of the people (dissidents and resisters.)

Ok chaps, PSS is the screaming part of my mind that calls to the people of these forums ranting that they JUST DONT GET IT!
I thank PSS for his outburst which i know was one of Utter frustration at the endless repititions of the few.
To The honourable Frisbeeteria, I say to you good sir thank you for letting us all suckle at the teat of your wisdom in all things regulated by the moderators of this forum. I would say you wrote the book! however enodia did with editing by hack! :D Or was it [voilet]? That is of no importance at this time.

To my point.. Bugs, bacteria, viruses, and general miniscule single celled organisms are NOT covererd by the terms of my proposed Resolution!
Hopefully i have made my point clear on that fact.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Jumbo Paper Clips
Bacteria could be genetically altered to create any organic thing we need from nature
Such as insulin?

But enough pedantism. Greater Boblandia fully supports this resolution. It's about time that a comprehensive endangered species act was proposed.

Insulin should not be produced by bacteria! It's not natural! Nor pigs! When we were nomads humans lived peacefully with one another. Agricultural-Industrialism has caused all the woes to the environment and for humanity! Shame on you! Shame!

This resolution will empower of government of Jumbo Paper Clips to take the land of dissidents who hate the environment and the will of the people. Your governments will also similarily be empowered, so you should support this bill which gives more power to the people against those as that resist the will of the people . (text in parenthesis excluded)

Interesting, exactly where is this right expressely given to individual state governments? As I understand it, this is an environmental protection resolution, and does not give the governement extra authoritative powers that are already forbidden (or at least not specifically granted) by past UN resolutions. Also, this resolution is in support of environmental protection, not government control.

The environment doesn't keep the human species alive, humans keep humans alive. This resolution will empower of government of Jumbo Paper Clips to take the land of dissidents who hate the environment and the will of the people.
Forgive me for my previous rant, bad day. And reading your reply, I agree with most, and am also aware of the enormous possibilities of new age techonology and bioengineering (I should know, I'm studying to become one) but this quote does not sit well with me. It rather adds to the already enormous ego attributed to the human race. It's rather single minded to say that the environment doesn't keep people alive, that we keep us alive... in saying that you are dismissing all other living things (the environment) and saying that you could stand your ground under any cause. However, human genius that makes it seem like we can hold our own, is severly impaired. The brain, the thinktank of the human anatomy, which holds so many secrets, is relatively limited in it's thought capacity. Have you ever thought of space unending...? Or of how long is forever. Our thoughts are limited to limits, ergo the human race should be limited, but the environment already has that straightened out. By disowning the environment, you pit yourself and the human race against the source of power that makes us who we are, a source of power that, if not cared for by us humans, has the inevitable right and intention, to destroy us. I strayed a bit from my point, but I think my general purpose is clear. WE are the environment, part of it rather, and we can't ignore it, no matter how skilled we are at survival. ;)

Spoonsavers

I couldn't agree more!! Bring on the list and I will begin getting rid of any animal or plant that is on the list and replace them with more musk ox!!

Insulin should not be produced by bacteria! It's not natural! Nor pigs! When we were nomads humans lived peacefully with one another. Agricultural-Industrialism has caused all the woes to the environment and for humanity! Shame on you! Shame!
That's a quite Cro-Magnon way of thinking. Seriously, why not use the technology available to us, as long as it agrees with the environmental system? To use knowlege is not a sin. To revel in one's personal knowledge.......? That's your call.

Such as insulin?
Insulin, drugs, and especially biotoxins. I love biotoxins. But enough talk about bacteria, that is forbidden.

Dear fishyguy... SHHHHH!!!!! Quiet! I can already see dissidents using your post and flinging cheese at my officials.

Insulin should not be produced by bacteria! It's not natural!
Neither is half the things we consume, basically every modern convienience and applicance, your clothes, water, and medical supplies are all 'unnatural'

When we were nomads humans lived peacefully with one another. Agricultural-Industrialism has caused all the woes to the environment and for humanity!
From where do you acquire this information?

It rather adds to the already enormous ego attributed to the human race. It's rather single minded to say that the environment doesn't keep people alive, that we keep us alive... in saying that you are dismissing all other living things (the environment) and saying that you could stand your ground under any cause.

Humans must use their minds to survive in the environment. Of course we could not live without an environment, since we must eat, drink, repair our cells, etc. However, if we only ate glucose and vitamin pills (and some other stuff) forever it would still be possible to survive. What I mean is that the environment itself doesn't care about our survival, we have to. We must figure out how to use the environment to further our survival. I didn't mean to dismiss the environment, we are a part of it, just not make it into a god. (Which of course you can do if you want, as long as you don't collaborate with dissidents. Especially the cheese flingers.)

The Mongongo guy seems to advocate nomadism instead of agriculture. I asked him something like that before and then he shot back 'Do you dare question Jared Diamond?' :confused: He said agriculturalism caused women to be abused, children to be enslaved, people to live in crowded areas and get disease, class warfare to form. And nomads didn't have this. And apparently they ate better.

When we were nomads humans lived peacefully with one another. Agricultural-Industrialism has caused all the woes to the environment and for humanity!
That would depend on your ideal of what humanity is. If it involves sitting in your mud hut looking out at the rain while you sup on a nice warm bowl of goats milk, well bully for you! personally i prefer my mass produced warm concrete home and my packaged tin of coffee while i look at a documentary of a mud hut in the rain.

Now lets not have me explain what a tangent is which this thread is endangered of going off on.

So you chaps remember what the thread is about!




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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Venerable libertarians

Description: In these times of Population growth expanding into environmentally sensitive areas of the NS world, with natural habitats being encroached. With over fishing and hunting of game running unchecked, a side effect is the ever greater numbers of animals on the brink of extinction. It is with these concerns we enact the United Nations Conservation of Endangered Species Bill, UNCoESB
Article 1:The Executive
On ratification by the General Assembly, the UN shall set up an executive body to monitor NS World wildlife numbers. The Executive shall decide what numbers apply to each level of animal population and what Species receive the title "Endangered" and the protections the title affords. The Executive shall control funding and see it is used where it is most required.
Article 2:Quotas.
International best practise should be adopted in forming quotas and heavy penalties should be applied if these quotas are broken. Imposition of quotas should ensure that total bans on fisheries or game hunting of a specific species should be a rare event.
Article 3:Education.
National governments are charged with educating local populations in the benefits of conservation of species that are heavily hunted within their national boundaries.
Article 4:Species of National Importance.
Where there are species regarded with a sense of national importance, National governments may apply conservation orders on that species within its own national boundaries and impose national restrictions to hunting of that species. These restrictions shall only apply within the National boundary and are not applicable to neighbouring Nations unless an agreement has been set by the neighbouring countries.
National Governments may set penalties for breaches of these national conservation orders.
Article 5:Monitoring
The UN in conjunction with National and Regional Governments, Non Governmental Organisations and Environmental agencies shall constantly monitor closely wildlife numbers in their area of concern. These numbers shall be tallied yearly so they may show increases or decreases in the numbers of wildlife. If considerable decrease or a recurring trend of decrease in population is noted local conservation attempts shall be instituted at a national level aided by local populations and national agencies.
Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.
We hereby enact the UNCoESB.
The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable.

Shall we get back on topic?

The Mongongo guy seems to advocate nomadism instead of agriculture. I asked him something like that before and then he shot back 'Do you dare question Jared Diamond?' :confused: He said agriculturalism caused women to be abused, children to be enslaved, people to live in crowded areas and get disease, class warfare to form. And nomads didn't have this. And apparently they ate better.
But had a life expectancy half that of a city dweller in a modern town!

:D

*Gulp* Peaceful nomads? (http://www.miniatures.de/img/ancients-4/italeri-6020-golden-horde.jpg)

Not that he has to worry, my whole point was that bacteria can't produce insulin anyway, they lack golgi apparati- But whatever. Do bacteria even need protection? The only reliable way I can think of that would endanger the world's bacteria supply is to launch the planet itself into the sun. It's taking the entirety of the UN's concerted efforts to get rid of smallpox alone, after all.

The emperor refuses to allow his nation's invaluable businesses, both large and small, to suffer needlessly while a foreign bureaucracy throws its weight around in his wilderness.

We offer Our support to this proposal, and encourage its passage. According to HOCEK teachings, safeguarding the environment is a moral imperative for all followers of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised). It is given to Our people as a form of veneration of the Manifestation of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp) in the form of the Earth's many different creatures.

What I mean is that the environment itself doesn't care about our survival, we have to. We must figure out how to use the environment to further our survival. I didn't mean to dismiss the environment, we are a part of it, just not make it into a god.
Touché. I do actually understand your argument, you stated it quite clearly. And I did figure it probably wasn't meant as I read it. No hard feelings? :rolleyes:

*Gulp* Peaceful nomads? (http://www.miniatures.de/img/ancients-4/italeri-6020-golden-horde.jpg)

Not that he has to worry, my whole point was that bacteria can't produce insulin anyway, they lack golgi apparati- But whatever. Do bacteria even need protection? The only reliable way I can think of that would endanger the world's bacteria supply is to launch the planet itself into the sun. It's taking the entirety of the UN's concerted efforts to get rid of smallpox alone, after all.

I don't understand. I guess I am ignorant in the matter. :(
I thought the human insulin gene was put in a plasmid and the plasmid was put into bacteria (bacteria being the promiscuous little buggers that they are :p ) Then the bacteria produce insulin. I thought this is how insulin was now being made for diabetics. Am I wrong? We really should stop talking about bacteria though, but I would like your response, because I am confused. Perhaps I phrased something wrong before?

And on the nomad matter, the Mongongo Nuts guy only refers to the nomads of the Kalahari Desert (where his nation is.) He says other violent nomads were just corrupted by Agricultural kleptocracy. It refers to this article: www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html (http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html)
He is quite silly.

Touché. I do actually understand your argument, you stated it quite clearly. And I did figure it probably wasn't meant as I read it. No hard feelings?
Sorry if I sounded mean! :p I'm not doing well today. I guess I better stop acting stupid. :rolleyes:

The Empire of Tajiri_san has also voted FOR this proposal

As has the Confederated City States of Mikitivity.

p.s. great idea with the enhanced poll! :)

Life is good... drugs are bad... Bush is a moron... (duh)... nature is even better than life! :p

I voted for of course :).

Have liked this resolution from the first time I read it.

Sir, With respect this bill aiims to save your nation money due to the fact that once it is a resolution we can repeal two others on the grounds of redundancy and prevent a flood of resolutions from ever becoming resolutions on the very same grounds.
As an industrialist looking for efficiencies from the UN, You would be crazy to vote anything other than for the proposal to be ratifiedIn that case, I'd be more than happy to vote for this one... AFTER the other two are repealed...

Since those two will be called 'redundant,' why was this one even allowed to run? I thought there was a rule against redundancy...

Oh, just a quick point... Plastic Spoon Savers, please refrain from flaming/baiting me. A jerk, maybe I am. An 'EEDIooT'? I dont even know what that was... maybe the word idiot was what you were going for? Nevertheless, I shall just have to settle in the fact that I don't like your debate style, and leave it at that.

I just really dont think goverments should have to take their tax dollars and spend it on things that are of civil concern. Like I said, if some humanitarians wish to save the animals, then they should pay for their protection out of their pockets. Why should a government be forced to tax its people more to save animals that some people may not even want? My arguement is that they shouldn't.

Now, if that makes me an idiot, or a jerk, so be it... but I am not going to just sit by and do nothing as another left-aimed proposal is opening up my pocket to take money.

The Looters have voted NAY on the resolution, we believe that all nations have the right to choose for themselves.

UN action taken against a country such as our to help protect animals that are our own, would be looked upon as encroachment. We believe very strongly in the rights of our countrymen, and the rights of other sovereign nations. We do not accept UN authority in this matter, and we bid you do not as well. VOTE NO.

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we need to look at the broader spectrum. Were would we acquire the funds for such a project. Do you impose that we recieve the funds from member nations? To do so would be folly. I see no way for a bill such as this to come to be.

According to the founding bill of the U.N. we are here to ensure the safety of human laws and rights, not those of animals. I present to you a past bill called Protection of Dolphins Act. This presented that Dolphins, with a above average intelligence for a animal. Deserved the same protection as a human. So should we consider a human killing a dolphin murder?

This same basic principle applies to this, animals have no rights. and the protection of endangered species should be left to the individual nations, not the U.N.

The U.N. simply does not have the resources, money or manpower, to spare to enforce this bill.

The Community of the Frozen Chosen would love to support this bill, and the concern for the environment it represents, but cannot due to one fatal flaw. At the root of the issues the delegates from Jumbo Paper Clips and Safalra were discussing, there is a lack of definition of the term "animal." While it might be reasonable to expect the Executive to make a decent ruling on the matter, that uncertainty is quite troublesome.
There is a small but signifcant minority of citizen in the Community that, as a result of genetic experiments before the incorporation of the Community as a nation, are part man, part animal. By some standards, they may be little more than sentient animals, though the Community hold them in a much higher esteem. There is a fear that these citzens would be treated as animals under this resolution, and they would almost certainly be considered endangered because there bloodline is restricted to small communities existing in the Community virtually unknow to the rest of the NS world. The possiblity that they could be forced into breeding programs is too much for me to overlook. I wish I could be secure in the possiblity of protecting them under Article 4, but I cannot find a reading of the language that allows using that clause to circumvent other Articles.
My nation will be holding a vote tomorrow to decide on this resolution. The individuals in danger of begin targeted will be alloted 45% of the vote as a protection of their minority rights. Thus if any more than 5% out of the rest of the population side with the the targeted individuals, which is quite likely given the interest that has been shown in protecting these individuals in the past, I will be forced to vote against this otherwise commendable bill.
The Community hopes that this resolution is voted down and is followed by a imrpoved version defining "animal" and/or leaving an escape route for unusual circumstances such as the Community's.

Sincerely,

Mark Heln
UN national delegate

In that case, I'd be more than happy to vote for this one... AFTER the other two are repealed...
I agree that it would have been preferable to repeal PoD and Banning Whaling first. However, there is considerable reluctance among a majority of Delegates to do so. I'm confident that after UNCoESB becomes law it will become much easier to repeal them.

Since those two will be called 'redundant,' why was this one even allowed to run? I thought there was a rule against redundancy...
That was addressed in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437778).

Considering the potential for a reduction in our profit margin due to the UN taking our hard earned money to protect cute, fuzzy, financially insignificant animals the People's Rpublic of Wudane must voice its disapproval of this resolution.

Now if someone could come up with a method for these protected critters to be squished into a super efficient industrial lubricant we might be able to talk. Hmmm.... I wonder if my citizens could be made into lubericant, must get my R&D people on this.

Yours in profit,

Wudane

The Community of the Frozen Chosen would love to support this bill, and the concern for the environment it represents, but cannot due to one fatal flaw. At the root of the issues the delegates from Jumbo Paper Clips and Safalra were discussing, there is a lack of definition of the term "animal." While it might be reasonable to expect the Executive to make a decent ruling on the matter, that uncertainty is quite troublesome.
There is a small but signifcant minority of citizen in the Community that, as a result of genetic experiments before the incorporation of the Community as a nation, are part man, part animal. By some standards, they may be little more than sentient animals, though the Community hold them in a much higher esteem. There is a fear that these citzens would be treated as animals under this resolution, and they would almost certainly be considered endangered because there bloodline is restricted to small communities existing in the Community virtually unknow to the rest of the NS world. The possiblity that they could be forced into breeding programs is too much for me to overlook. I wish I could be secure in the possiblity of protecting them under Article 4, but I cannot find a reading of the language that allows using that clause to circumvent other Articles.
My nation will be holding a vote tomorrow to decide on this resolution. The individuals in danger of begin targeted will be alloted 45% of the vote as a protection of their minority rights. Thus if any more than 5% out of the rest of the population side with the the targeted individuals, which is quite likely given the interest that has been shown in protecting these individuals in the past, I will be forced to vote against this otherwise commendable bill.
The Community hopes that this resolution is voted down and is followed by a imrpoved version defining "animal" and/or leaving an escape route for unusual circumstances such as the Community's.

Sincerely,

Mark Heln
UN national delegate
So they are citizens of your nation who are sentient and have the right to vote? How then could this bill possibly classify them as animals?

i am at quite a loss...i do not understand exactly why this proposal effects all industries...my people see no reason why i should effect our book publishing industry...

i am at quite a loss...i do not understand exactly why this proposal effects all industries...my people see no reason why i should effect our book publishing industry...
OOC: Thats just the way the game is coded. In the environmental category, resolutions can affect Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping or All Businesses.

The Community of the Frozen Chosen would love to support this bill, and the concern for the environment it represents, but cannot due to one fatal flaw. At the root of the issues the delegates from Jumbo Paper Clips and Safalra were discussing, there is a lack of definition of the term "animal." While it might be reasonable to expect the Executive to make a decent ruling on the matter, that uncertainty is quite troublesome.
There is a small but signifcant minority of citizen in the Community that, as a result of genetic experiments before the incorporation of the Community as a nation, are part man, part animal. By some standards, they may be little more than sentient animals, though the Community hold them in a much higher esteem. There is a fear that these citzens would be treated as animals under this resolution

If they're in a high esteem and your or the community thinks they're animals, I'd hate to be in a low esteem in your nation...

i am at quite a loss...i do not understand exactly why this proposal effects all industries...my people see no reason why i should effect our book publishing industry...


If logging is halted due to an endangered animal living in the area, i'm sure you'll notice a slight change. ;)

After further debate it seems this proposal is geared towards protecting the "cute" animals.

If logging is halted due to an endangered animal living in the area, i'm sure you'll notice a slight change. ;)

After further debate it seems this proposal is geared towards protecting the "cute" animals.
Datopp, Yes it is geared for protection of "Cute animals". Also protected are ok looking animals, man thats an ugly damned animal animals, and oh sweet jesus thats the butt ugliest damned animal i have ever had the misfortune to look at, Where that animal is endangered or has been deemed an animal of national importance.
What you just dont seem to want to understand is that this resolution would
1, Retain your Nations control of conservation efforts,
2, Remove the need for further funding of conservation resolutions,
3, Allow hunting and fishing of all wild life in your nation with exceptions of species of national importance of animals deemed important to your nation, By your own government!

I am a little more than dissapointed by the members who refuse to vote yes to this proposal. I have endevered to introduce a proposal that actually works and gives a balanced approach to conservation within the UN.
To those of you who still say NO i ask you the following question.
Why the hell are you in the UN?

As I'm painfully new to this I'll abstain from making too many comments and making myself look like a fool. However I do find all this very interesting and was enjoyable to read.

As for our stance I will leave that unanswered at this time. Until I have a further graps of what's been/being said.

<SNIP>
To those of you who still say NO i ask you the following question.
Why the hell are you in the UN?Because there is more to the UN than just passing resolutions that destroy the average right-wing ecconmy. Some of us do it such that we can take over the world! *evil laugh*

Seriously, if I could be in the UN for the military side of it, and never have to deal with one UN issue, I would. But since I can't, I need to take my stance against this one.

And yes VL, I recall that whole debate about whether this should be allowed or not. I didn't speak then as it had nothing to do with me. However, now that it has come to vote, it has everything to do with me. I am still in process of campaining for NAY's, for what little good it will do me, but such is life I suppose.

Good proposal. It'll hopefully make things a hell of a lot easier for those of us who actually care about environmental issues.
There's natural selection, and then there's the destruction caused by man. Extinction of a species because their natural habitat has been destroyed or they are being relentlessly overfished or hunted are NOT examples of natural selection. We need to take responsibility for our own actions as human beings, and this proposal shows us exactly how to go about this. I've voted for the proposal.

i didnt bother to read everyone elses statements because im lazy and busy, but i still have an oppinion i want to share. It seems to me that what this bill is proposing would ban the ban on fishing and hunting set up in my nation of compulsory vegetarians. This bill would then undermine a lot of things i have worked hard to achieve. i have other things to say, but again im lazy and have to go deliver flyers for a bottle drive for my local scout troop so im conserving my energy. But this bill is supposed to help the environment right? so come on.

It seems to me that what this bill is proposing would ban the ban on fishing and hunting set up in my nation of compulsory vegetarians.
No it wouldn't. If you already have a ban on hunting and fishing, then it is only an extremist extension of this bill.

[OOC post]


To my point.. Bugs, bacteria, viruses, and general miniscule single celled organisms are NOT covererd by the terms of my proposed Resolution! It would hardly be able to -- the flu virus, for instance, is considered a biological weapon and theoretically has been destroyed (except for a single secured counteragent research sample of not more than 250mg) in every UN nation.

DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.... 3. In any circumstances not covered by Article 2 [counter-agents]: Any bioweapon proscribed as described in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation or known to be in the possession of its citizenry must be immediately and completely destroyed through a method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent. It would be difficult for this latest UN resolution to protect what a previous UN resolution theoretically orders you to destroy.

(That the flu virus still exists, that everyone with the flu isn't locked into their own homes along with their families by the government upon exhibiting symptoms, that the military isn't using weapons-grade explosives to incinerate every tissue ever contaminated with this "bioweapon", argues that essentially every nation in the UN is *already* in violation of this resolution, but this is getting off topic unless you want an illustration of how a UN resolution can be crafted so as to be unenforceable.)

I voted for of course :).

Have liked this resolution from the first time I read it.


I concur.

Without getting entangled in the necessary semantic legal arguments, I would ask all nations to consider why global instruments, such as the Kyoto Protocols and this proposal, are rarely passed, and even more rarely adhered to. It's because the global economy/industry is more important to the daily survival and growth of our individual nations than potentially destroying this planet's environment and "forcing" the extinction of species. It is in mankind's very nature to strive for victory and control over all adversaries, including Mother Nature. The conclusions on Global Warming are not all in. Maybe it's a result of industry, and maybe it's got absolutely nothing to do with. Does industry harm the environment and kill certain species? Yes. Does it preserve humanity and allow it to progress? Yes. The cost, from my nation’s pragmatic viewpoint, does not outweigh the benefits. What should be understood though is that Darwin realized that species are intended to die and become extinct for an array of reasons, and in the promotion and progress of humanity, which is what my nation is most concerned with, this idealistic proposal is nothing but that: utterly romantic and unworkable. I wish we could save every dolphin from getting caught up in a net and drowning, or stop every environment from having its animals and plants evicted so that human communities and industries can expand, but it’s against progress and against the future, which is what this is all supposed to be about. The proposal is a great thought, and those who vote for it I believe do so out of sheer sincerity and hope, but if implemented, it would not at all be practical or helpful, so my nation chooses to vote against it.

The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra observes that this resolution does not specifying limits on which species can be protected.


I assume that the Executive Body of UNCoESB Members would clearly understand the difference between pandemic-spreading bacteria and macro life-forms. I understand and appreciate your reasoning; unfortunately, as the dominant species on the planet, it is our responsibility to weigh the risks and benefits of our course of action and pursue one that benefits the greater whole.


This NS setup brings back great memories of Model UN conferences I attended...

So they are citizens of your nation who are sentient and have the right to vote? How then could this bill possibly classify them as animals?

Because they are genetically part animal and because thier human half could potentially, under this proposal, be considered "animal" as well. Given the lack of a definition of "animal", all members of the scientific classification "animal" (whatever the scientists of the NS world consider that to mean) are at risk. The only reason I dont think the general human population has to worry is that there is pretty much no risk of them ever beign declared endangered, thus this resolution wouldn't affect them. And while the government recognizes them as citizens, there is certainly a portion of the population who consider them inferior. Infact the term "animal" is occasionally used among the less tolerant individuals of my nation to insultingly refer to the genetically engineered segment of the population.

Hope that answers your question.


If they're in a high esteem and your or the community thinks they're animals, I'd hate to be in a low esteem in your nation...
The government and a sizable portion of the population (including virtually all of the civil liberties and equality groups) consider these individuals equals. The culture these peoples have created is highly valued and protected by government policy. There are some villages however, who still habor hatred of those who are not fully human, and it has taken years of effort to stop violent actions by the small, intolerant portion of our nation. It is these villages, not the nation as a whole that abuse this otherwise respected group.

Our fear is that outsiders may adopt the position of this less tolerant group and consider our special citizens animals rather than respect them as equals. Is that all that unreasonable?

Please rest assured that the Community is generally exceptionally tolerant and open. We are ashamed of the black mark of species-based violence on our history and we are working hard toward the day when all citizens, including the genetically altered population, live together with acceptance and harmony.

Without getting entangled in the necessary semantic legal arguments, I would ask all nations to consider why global instruments, such as the Kyoto Protocols and this proposal, are rarely passed, and even more rarely adhered to. <snip>
in the promotion and progress of humanity, which is what my nation is most concerned with, this idealistic proposal is nothing but that: utterly romantic and unworkable. <snip>
The proposal is a great thought, and those who vote for it I believe do so out of sheer sincerity and hope, but if implemented, it would not at all be practical or helpful, so my nation chooses to vote against it.

OOC: But that is the beauty of NS. With the possible exception of a few RP situations, every resolution that is passed is adhered to by every member nation, whether they want to or not. (Good ol' compliance ministry) Some may squeeze though loopholes is discussions, but the games programming has the resolution functioning and being enforced in every nation.

How can you classify any human being as not being an animal. For when you get down to the ground of the matter, we are in fact animals, and it is an inflation of your ego if you think you are anything other than, or your life is more superior to an animal. :rolleyes:

I back this bill up 100%. It's very important to protect wildlife from going extinct. Otherwise we will not get a chance nor future generations on seeing these animals. I hope other people would agree with me on this issue.

I would still like to hear from VL regarding the ramifications of Article 7, although I have already voted in favor of this bill, and I do not intend to change my vote. :)

Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.1. Who enforces the ban on hunting? The individual nations, or the Executive?
2. "Full funding" granted by whom? The individual nations or the UN?
3. "Criminal charges" brought by whom? The individual nations?

This is stupid the animals if unable to supporrt thier own life and prolifferate the future of said species and stay off endangerd list obviously doesnt have the evolutionary promise to continue the species and shouldnt have help from humans who are spending so much time worring about ridicoulus proposals and concentrateon important things

:fluffle: :sniper:

How can you classify any human being as not being an animal. For when you get down to the ground of the matter, we are in fact animals, and it is an inflation of your ego if you think you are anything other than, or your life is more superior to an animal. :rolleyes:

I dont dispute that. My tone on that issue is based on the assumption that the resolution's author has no intent of having protection for humans should their population be deemed dangerously low. I was just pointing to the fact that though "animal" is not usually meant to refer to humans, it could be interpreted that way here.

It has good intentions, that is all that need be required. Why do you hate the environment so much? Do you not see that the will of the people requires that their government be able to act, even at the expense of the 'right to private property.' We must maintain sustainable development, if not for the sake of the environment, then for ourselves. Governments need to have powers to fulfill the will of the people and protect the environment, not fall prey to special interest groups that would wish to take that away. Nobody complains of the 'uncanny' control of property by developers who may sacrifice the collective good of the environment for personal profit.


I wonder if you have ever heard the quote "the road to hell is paved by the rightous and lined with good intentions." Good intentions are often far more damging then an all out fued. Also i have to say that your extremily petty comment asking why he hates the environment is compleatly asinine. Second did you ever think that if it was the will of the people in these situations that this issue would ever have come up? In reality most people don't give a rats ass about the environment except when it comes time to impress thier friends. You might want to take a look at the number of people oficially affiliated with environmental groups. Some of the most radical special interst groups in existance are environmentalists. Scan the news for things on ELFS or perhaps check the number of deaths among loggers due to spiked trees. And last but not least what the hell does "the collective good of the environment" mean? It dosnt make anysense. The environment is not a collective. That implies sentiance.

Originally Posted by Plastic Spoon Savers
How can you classify any human being as not being an animal. For when you get down to the ground of the matter, we are in fact animals, and it is an inflation of your ego if you think you are anything other than, or your life is more superior to an animal.

i find it rather alarming that you would consider a sentients life as worth no more than a nonsentients. Survival of the fitest is the way of the world my friend. Frankly, if it meant saving one human life i would destroy an entire species in a heartbeat. You cant compare livestock with human beings. Not and still espouse to the belief that life is sacred.

I, as the leader in the Colony of FurWaif, understand the premise of this UN proposal - it's kind of like an endangered list - however I disagree strongly with the verbage. It's not written how it should be written.

In "real life" I have to adhere to CITES and other wildlife laws.
I think this proposal should be scrapped and re-written like CITES to be more realistic.

You'll need a governing body, a secretariat, a series of species lists and their level of threats, and incentives for nations to join in, such as allowing limited trade in certain species to help the economies of certain countries.

Obviously, adding the fake animals to your "CITES" (such as flying pigs, purple cows, and other "national animals" that are made up) that are endangered is going to be a heck of a task.

Last, how are we going to get the Anarchist lands to join? They have no incentive as they follow no formal laws. If a highly protected species exists only in an Anarchist land, how will we as the UN oversee it's protection? Maybe buy some and ranch them in a non-anarchist land?

Obviously, adding the fake animals to your "CITES" (such as flying pigs, purple cows, and other "national animals" that are made up) that are endangered is going to be a heck of a task.

It would be an impossible task. Literally.

1. The list of such animals is potentially infinite. It is limitted only by the imagination of the cumulative body of NS users, or in other words not limitted at all.

2. There's a character limit on NSUN legislation. It does not lend itself to making big long lists a part of resolutions.

So your choices are to take what you can get with the resources available to us, or refuse to accept any legislation in the absence of unacheivable perfection.

Last, how are we going to get the Anarchist lands to join?

If they're in the UN they follow UN rules courtesy of the compliance ministry whether they're Anarchist or any other kind of government.

I dont dispute that. My tone on that issue is based on the assumption that the resolution's author has no intent of having protection for humans should their population be deemed dangerously low. I was just pointing to the fact that though "animal" is not usually meant to refer to humans, it could be interpreted that way here.
HUMANS ARE ALREADY PROTECTED IN SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS!
THE MAJORITY OF NSUN NATIONS ARE HUMAN NATIONS THUS RESOLUTIONS ARE ENACTED BY HUMANS FOR HUMAN INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD AROUND THEM!
And just so you know with regard to hunting of humans that is covered by resolution no#83 Eon Convention on Genocide and a humans right to life was granted in resolution #26 Universal bill of rights.

Now stop playing silly buggers and go vote for the UNCoESB.

This is stupid the animals if unable to supporrt thier own life and prolifferate the future of said species and stay off endangerd list obviously doesnt have the evolutionary promise to continue the species and shouldnt have help from humans who are spending so much time worring about ridicoulus proposals and concentrateon important things

:fluffle: :sniper:
Hmmmmm... do you see the flaw in this? What happens when we, humans, the dominant evolutionary force, are the only living thing on the planet because the other less intelligent animals have all gone the way of the Dodo (probably due to our lack of concern and our want for dominance)? Main question: food. I understand there are many vegetarians out in the world, but what about those who enjoy meat? Do we start hacking off tenderloins and T-bones from eachothers' bodies? Then you are degrading the value of human life, and a lot of people in this forum will be angry at that. :rolleyes:

I think you're forgetting something -

This bill doesn't ban hunting and fishing completely, just that of the endangered species. Meaning that hunting/fishing etc. can still occur as long as the species being hunted/fished is not on the endangered list.

Did I get that correct?

(In other words our carnivores won't starve.)

Our nation considers this act a direct attack on our national rights of self determination. We feel much of the legislation passed thus far is not required at this level and would normally be addressed by national legislatures. Given issues we have noted about representation and many of what we consider frivolous legislation, and in so far as our regional delegate will not consult with us on voting matters, we are forced to take the only action available to us.
The UN is taking another direct action affecting our nation that we do not agree with. We will not sacrifice our industries for out people to meet a UN agenda and be drawn into the morass of UN politics.
The Nation of Taflagar does immediately withdraw from the UN.
The Taflagar representative leaves the UN assembly room with the Taflagar staff following.

Our nation considers this act a direct attack on our national rights of self determination. We feel much of the legislation passed thus far is not required at this level and would normally be addressed by national legislatures. Given issues we have noted about representation and many of what we consider frivolous legislation, and in so far as our regional delegate will not consult with us on voting matters, we are forced to take the only action available to us.
The UN is taking another direct action affecting our nation that we do not agree with. We will not sacrifice our industries for out people to meet a UN agenda and be drawn into the morass of UN politics.
The Nation of Taflagar does immediately withdraw from the UN.
The Taflagar representative leaves the UN assembly room with the Taflagar staff following.

[The delegation from Ausserland reacts to the sudden departure of the Taflagar delegation:

The Ambassador to the UN waves "bye-bye".
The Ambassador-at-Large sidles over to the Taflagar delegation seats to see if they left any munchies behind.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs rushes down to the administrative offices to see if he can get the Ausserland delegation moved to the now-vacant seats. (They're closer to the coffee bar.)] :p

I think you're forgetting something -

This bill doesn't ban hunting and fishing completely, just that of the endangered species. Meaning that hunting/fishing etc. can still occur as long as the species being hunted/fished is not on the endangered list.

Did I get that correct?

(In other words our carnivores won't starve.)
Exactly correct! nor will your omnivores have to go with out meat :D

Our nation considers this act a direct attack on our national rights of self determination. We feel much of the legislation passed thus far is not required at this level and would normally be addressed by national legislatures. Given issues we have noted about representation and many of what we consider frivolous legislation, and in so far as our regional delegate will not consult with us on voting matters, we are forced to take the only action available to us.
The UN is taking another direct action affecting our nation that we do not agree with. We will not sacrifice our industries for out people to meet a UN agenda and be drawn into the morass of UN politics.
The Nation of Taflagar does immediately withdraw from the UN.
The Taflagar representative leaves the UN assembly room with the Taflagar staff following.
The Member for taflagar is to be commended for taking the honourable route. You do not agree with UN policies and as such are leaving the UN.
I wish some other less honourable members who have no love for this organisation or the policies that effect its members yet remain as members of the UN, would follow the same route. Instead they remain to try to impede and obstruct.

I think you're forgetting something -

This bill doesn't ban hunting and fishing completely, just that of the endangered species. Meaning that hunting/fishing etc. can still occur as long as the species being hunted/fished is not on the endangered list.

Did I get that correct?

(In other words our carnivores won't starve.)
I agree, what I was intending to point out was the flaw in my colleague's statement; making it sound like (yet again) that we as humans can live without the inferior living things on our planet.

[The delegation from Ausserland reacts to the sudden departure of the Taflagar delegation:

The Ambassador to the UN waves "bye-bye".
The Ambassador-at-Large sidles over to the Taflagar delegation seats to see if they left any munchies behind.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs rushes down to the administrative offices to see if he can get the Ausserland delegation moved to the now-vacant seats. (They're closer to the coffee bar.)] :p
Your request for a seat transfer has been approved, enjoy your new seats.

The Member for taflagar is to be commended for taking the honourable route. You do not agree with UN policies and as such are leaving the UN.
I wish some other less honourable members who have no love for this organisation or the policies that effect its members yet remain as members of the UN, would follow the same route. Instead they remain to try to impede and obstruct.The representative for th' Venerable Libertarians might wanna be just a bit careful there, son, about sayin' things that sound a bit like "my way or the highway." If you go chasin' off everyone what that don't agree with ya, one day you'll wake up and find the UN is just you and a few o' yer buddies sitting around passin' laws on one 'nuther while the rest of us are off somewhere else with a beer in the shade.

While we'll agree that someone that don't want t'have the UN *ever* tell them anything about what t'do with their country prob'ly don't belong here, just because they object to the nature of some recent laws don't mean they don't belong. I mean, if they're just-a-bit frustrated over things they think are bein' passed just to pad out th' list of "things ya gotta do," even if they have a ridiculous part or two (we here in Dolfor still havin' a good chuckle at the UN tryin' to get rid of the flu by makin' it illegal), does that mean we ain't got no place for 'em? If yer nation ain't one in the smoke-filled back room somewheres writin' the resolution, does that mean y'get no say except for your one vote, which don't hardly make a lick'a difference most times when you see a whole mess'a people jumpin' on the bandwagon cos the title sounds good in principle?

In a case like that I think it's a bit o'sass to suggest that the problem is with the fella who's a bit rankled at the whole mess. Watcha call impedin' and obstructin' might just be the sign o' somebody who gives half-a-care to try to get someone up and smellin' the coffee and a-listenin before the UN really is nuthin' but an empty building with a few people writin' resolutions for each other and a few handfuls of others mailin' it in from home.

Dear UN members and delegates,

Bolitania welcomes the regulation of quotas on hunting and fishing. However we would like to express our reserves on this resolution as we should wish to see the protection of the habitat as an addition to this resolution. As we see the on-going issues of deforestation, pollution and other human effects on habitats not being addressed. Also we would wish to point out that many yet unknown species disappear daily without our knowing it through deforestation and other human practises.

We however do salute the resolution as it stands, since it does address the issue of quotas. While we anxiously await resolutions pertaining to habitat preservation. We also would like to express our full support and cooperation with any nation that wishes to be active in protecting habitats and finding alternative ways of finding symbiotic practices with nature. For example the protection of the rainforest can also mean greater benefit, such as the devolpment of medicine through sientific investigation of plant and animal species.

Kind Regards

Hmmmmm... do you see the flaw in this? What happens when we, humans, the dominant evolutionary force, are the only living thing on the planet because the other less intelligent animals have all gone the way of the Dodo (probably due to our lack of concern and our want for dominance)? Main question: food. I understand there are many vegetarians out in the world, but what about those who enjoy meat? Do we start hacking off tenderloins and T-bones from eachothers' bodies? Then you are degrading the value of human life, and a lot of people in this forum will be angry at that. :rolleyes:

But this bill was not meant to protect domesticated farm animals. It was meant to save certain endangered species from extinction. If they were important to humans they would not be going extinct.

I wonder if you have ever heard the quote "the road to hell is paved by the rightous and lined with good intentions." Good intentions are often far more damging then an all out fued. Also i have to say that your extremily petty comment asking why he hates the environment is compleatly asinine. Second did you ever think that if it was the will of the people in these situations that this issue would ever have come up? In reality most people don't give a rats ass about the environment except when it comes time to impress thier friends. You might want to take a look at the number of people oficially affiliated with environmental groups. Some of the most radical special interst groups in existance are environmentalists. Scan the news for things on ELFS or perhaps check the number of deaths among loggers due to spiked trees. And last but not least what the hell does "the collective good of the environment" mean? It dosnt make anysense. The environment is not a collective. That implies sentiance.

:mad: Silence! That is enough out of you! I am the government! It is people like you that come in with their neo-liberal ideas about property... capitalist exploitation! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: Who is the final owner of property? I am! I have the guns, I am the one protecting all the contracts! Their rights? It is I who give them their rights, even if you claim they have inalienable rights, it will be I who decide if they will exist! The people are too stupid to think for themselves, I ensure that there is a social safety net for them! I am the one who has the foresight to look at the environment and at the public's good. Left to themselves, all the people would think about is themselves! And with democracy they would vote money out of the producing people, like those which your region prides itself on containing. The government, as representative of the will of the people, looks after all these factors and finds what is in the common good. Are you revolted? But your country also has little political freedoms. Why? Because you know they cannot be left to themselves. The environment grants me enormous amounts of power that I must use wisely. You say the people do not approve, that they would stop me if they had the chance. That is the proof! They do not, they easily could simply stop and halt the progress of the country. They do not. They will not. They give me a political mandate, they sanction my actions by operating within my system. My economy is good, we can mix the power of the gun and the power of the dollar. Some things cannot be done through voluntary trade. And even the market itself relies on my guns to back each transaction. It is the social contract. The people trust me to protect them, and in return they pay taxes or sacrifice certain liberties for the protection of the public. Today, it is the environment. Tomorrow, it may be political speech. But, always there is security, both economic and personal. The government must look out for the survival of all people, rights must adapt to changing times. Our environment is threatened, we must act, even if costs some people their economic "freedom". How is this any different than restricting economic freedoms to provide for welfare, to fund universal healthcare, to provide schools, to promote safety- yes at the point of a gun. All these things require government to step in with the force, but in the end, the people are more free because they now have access to them. They have a freedom to act. This is the common good that is at stake.

I do have one suggestion for the resolution, based on concerns about its implementation. Surely it would be better if the organisation envisaged within the document was sub-divided into sections of speciality, i.e. Sealife, Avian, etc.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live enviromentally friendly Compadria!

I do have one suggestion for the resolution, based on concerns about its implementation. Surely it would be better if the organisation envisaged within the document was sub-divided into sections of speciality, i.e. Sealife, Avian, etc.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live enviromentally friendly Compadria!

It is for those very reasons that The Republic of Goat Lovers Inc has regretfully had to vote against this resolution!!

That and the fact Aardvarks are overrunning our unspolit countryside and my Government has decided to get rid of a few!! :mp5:

It is for those very reasons that The Republic of Goat Lovers Inc has regretfully had to vote against this resolution!!
What reasons? Campadria was providing a suggestion to better the resolution. What was suggested is not actually in the resolution at this time.

That and the fact Aardvarks are overrunning our unspolit countryside and my Government has decided to get rid of a few!!
It has already been pointed out that hunting/fishing is not restricted by the resolution, except in cases where the survival of the species is at stake. This has been brought up a few times and i am just restating that hunting/fishing is not prohibited by the resolution unless it is a matter of extinction.

I would also like to add that the concerns raised by Omigodtheykilledkenny have yet to be addressed by the resolution's author.
1. Who enforces the ban on hunting? The individual nations, or the Executive?
2. "Full funding" granted by whom? The individual nations or the UN?
3. "Criminal charges" brought by whom? The individual nations?

Don't hurt my business. If this looks like it's going to pass I'm leaving the UN. I take pride in my economy and it won't be hurt by some tree-hugger.

My Apologies! I had missed my colleagues post regarding article 7, Which i had covered in a previous post earlier in the thread.


Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden. Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this.

I would also like to add that the concerns raised by Omigodtheykilledkenny have yet to be addressed by the resolution's author.

Quote:
1. Who enforces the ban on hunting? The individual nations, or the Executive?
2. "Full funding" granted by whom? The individual nations or the UN?
3. "Criminal charges" brought by whom? The individual nations?

1, The executive will take whatever steps deemed nessessary to enforce any restrictions or bans and is responsible for monitoring and ensuring quotas are being adhered to. it is anticipated that A full escalation event would include legal enforcement in conjunction with the UN Member nations government in conjunction with granting funding to aid in defending the protected species. Where a government of a UN Nation does not assist, It will be found in contravention to a un resolution and can be removed as a UN member. It Must be pointed out that individual Nations whom chose to take matters into their own hands where A rogue Nation decides against assisting the executive, Do so without the backing of the UNCoESB executive or the United Nations.
2, Full funding is Granted by the UN, Via the UNCoESB Fund raised by, Yes you guys guessed it, You chaps the UN members in the Usual manner and granted to organisations directly associated with the conservation effort. (May I point out at this juncture funding this bill will cost your nations a whole lot less after resolutions 106 and 70 are repealed due to redundancy and this bill will prevent any further resolutions being instituted, similar to those resolutions on the same grounds. The cost of having multiple resolutions to do what a single resolution could cover is one of the main reasons for my submitting the proposal in the first place.)
3, Criminal Charges are up to article 6 brought by the member nation or concerned UN Nations via international courts. In a full escalation event the Executive are responsible for taking the accused to court in the nation where the offence has occured. UN Member Nations under the directives of the compliance ministry must comply and assist in every way possible or face expulsion from the UN.
4, Let it be noted UNCoESB cannot be enforced in non UN Nations or in International Waters. This is the rule under current UN Directives and therefore cannot be legislated for.

I hope this clears up any queries regarding Article 7 which would have been an area i would have fleshed out, However what i have just posted alone would nearly exceed the maximum charachter rule for submission of a proposal.

Don't hurt my business. If this looks like it's going to pass I'm leaving the UN. I take pride in my economy and it won't be hurt by some tree-hugger.
Business?

Mbaya is ranked 1st in the region and 12,015th in the world for Largest Basket Weaving Sector.


Venerable libertarians is ranked 14th in the region and 101,066th in the world for Largest Basket Weaving Sector.

Oh yeah .... this will kill your basket weaving sector!

On a serious note, My nation is a business friendly nation with an "All Consuming Economy" and a Massive Uranium Mining Industry. This resolution will ultimately cost our nations less! especially after we have repealed resolutions 70 and 106, once the UNCoESB is enacted.
My Nation is a billion miles further away from the Basket weaving Tree Huggers than yours and which you so easily deride.

Thanks Venerable Libertarians! You cleared up my questions about article 7.
Lets get this passed so we can get rid of some redundant legislation. :D Now I'm off to find a good cigar, some good bourbon, and a woman of questionable morals. :p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Palentine

Thanks Venerable Libertarians! You cleared up my questions about article 7.
Lets get this passed so we can get rid of some redundant legislation. :D Now I'm off to find a good cigar, some good bourbon, and a woman of questionable morals. :p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
UN Ambassador
The Palentine
Erm Sulla.
Just wondering old pal?
If you are here, and I am Here........ Who is commanding the expedition to the 40th floor of the UN Building? :D

Despite the good intentions of this bill the free land of Geebdeeblan would like to protest the inclusion of the forced breeding of at risk species. The bill reads:

Article 6: Capture and Breeding
If local populations decrease to a worrying level then local Zoological and Marine specialists shall step in to capture and breed, in an attempt to reverse the decrease in numbers. Also, if larger populations of the same animal exist in another part of the NS world steps should be taken to introduce new blood lines to the endangered species.
Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.

We say:

There is only one way to protect species and that is to preserve their habitat. The ability to capture and breed these species will only guarantee that their ecosystems can be turned into malls and strip mines. Once we have the justification that "zoological and marine specialists" will save a few breeding species then we can cut down those trees and put up some condos.

Not in Geebdeeblan. In our nation we protect species by protecting the land that they live on.

We will vote for this bill but ask that all nations put the earth first!

Free land of Geebdeeblan

COST:
In the real world - mebbe three hundred nations strong - it is estimated that somewhere between 30-300 species go extinct every day.

Multiply that number by 1000. That's how many species U.N. member nations will likely have to pay to protect every single day. Subtract and divide a few numbers to accompany other circumstances and you're still looking at a horrific mass of deficit, especially considering the size, scope and natural variations of U.N. nations.

But there's more: a quota system is not and will never be the most effective way to protect the environment. Firstly, you have to take in the consideration that a lot of animals go extinct for reasons that are not-directly related to us, and perhaps more importantly for a reason. If the United Nations foolhardedly steps in and tries to protect one species, we can in turn horribly harm others.

Hypothetical: Say a particular species of marsupian picks up a horribly virulent disease, that kills off almost the entire species. Taking note of this, the U.N. moves in and works out a way to immunize it from the effects of the virus. And then, as opposed to killing off an entire species of marsupial and running out of food, the virus adapts and spreads to other animals.

The primary problem with an active stance on conservation is that we're physically going in and mucking about with nature. And we've proven over many years and many, many mistakes that we don't have a clue about how to manipulate her. To imply that we have to identify and protect thousands and thousands of animals out of millions and millions of species - and to make it a criminal action not to do so - is absurdity to the highest degree. We could very well cause more damage than we prevent, and the cost... well, the cost is patently absurd.

If the U.N. wants to take steps towards protecting environmental interests, so be it. But we should start by introducing resolutions that reduce our own impact on the environment - our encroachment upon animal habitats, our pollution of the land, sea and sky, the overconsumption of resources and the waste it generates. This, I cry, is foolishness. Vote it down.

COST:
In the real world - mebbe three hundred nations strong - it is estimated that somewhere between 30-300 species go extinct every day.

Multiply that number by 1000. That's how many species U.N. member nations will likely have to pay to protect every single day. Subtract and divide a few numbers to accompany other circumstances and you're still looking at a horrific mass of deficit, especially considering the size, scope and natural variations of U.N. nations.

Oh nonsense. You can multiply the amount of resources by a 1000 as well, which means that there's not a big difference with the RL world in terms of cost. It's like saying "look at what the USA government is spending compared to the Netherlands!" without looking at the income of those governments.

Also, the costs are spread over many, many nations. Divide the costs by 35.000 and that's what you're paying. Nearly nothing, compared to the rest of your budget.

But there's more: a quota system is not and will never be the most effective way to protect the environment. Firstly, you have to take in the consideration that a lot of animals go extinct for reasons that are not-directly related to us, and perhaps more importantly for a reason. If the United Nations foolhardedly steps in and tries to protect one species, we can in turn horribly harm others.

Then choices have to be made. But that's not bad. You are taking one small sample of animals and use that as a reason not to protect animals, while the rest of us are looking at the important group, the animals that are endangered because of human actions.

The primary problem with an active stance on conservation is that we're physically going in and mucking about with nature. And we've proven over many years and many, many mistakes that we don't have a clue about how to manipulate her.

We do have some clue. And we also know what not to do: destroy the natural habitat of species, hunt them for fun, eat them to extinction...with those things, we can protect species.

You're speculating about effects that probably won't happen or won't matter. This resolution doesn't magically protect all animals, but it surely is a step in the right direction. That's why I voted for.

Oh nonsense. You can multiply the amount of resources by a 1000 as well, which means that there's not a big difference with the RL world in terms of cost. It's like saying "look at what the USA government is spending compared to the Netherlands!" without looking at the income of those governments.

I know that the numbers are not terribly accurate, which is why I never cited a specific number. There are a tremendous amount of mutators to the specific amount, such as size and population, or environmental density and diversity - a rainforest has millions of unique species all by itself. But the fact remains that the amount of animals that go extinct numbers in the thousands if not tens of thousands per day. That's a lot of endangered species, that's a lot of resources, that's a lot of bureacracy.


Also, the costs are spread over many, many nations. Divide the costs by 35.000 and that's what you're paying. Nearly nothing, compared to the rest of your budget.

31,000, actually. Now take into account that some nations are dirt poor. Do they pay the same amount and go bankrupt, or do they pay a percentage?
And consider exactly how much it does cost to go in and protect an animal species. You need researchers to find out how the animal lives and where it lives. You need to cut off whatever human interests there are in that animals habitat. You need to pay the people who enforce the anti-hunting laws. You need to apply extra money for animals with special needs or particular mutations. This resolution allows no flexibility in terms of paying the cost. You just pay it.


Then choices have to be made. But that's not bad. You are taking one small sample of animals and use that as a reason not to protect animals, while the rest of us are looking at the important group, the animals that are endangered because of human actions.

Making that decision is the most important reason I stand opposed to the resolution (Pojonia and it's puppet are flat broke anyways). Because, as the resolution specifically states, in a binding, not suggestive or implied, clause, that whenever an animal nears extinction "Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species and to rebuild its population to an acceptable level for the species to recover. Criminal charges shall be brought against any individual or group in contravention to this." Remember these laws are immediately brought into effect by the U.N. Gnomes. You can't break them, you can't go around them unless they specifically show you a loophole. This resolution kills your ability to make that decision. Completely, utterly. It is inherently flawed in its awesome power.


We do have some clue. And we also know what not to do: destroy the natural habitat of species, hunt them for fun, eat them to extinction...with those things, we can protect species.

Exactly. But it still stands that animals go extinct all the time regardless, and protecting those animals provides no benefit to anyone. A resolution regarding the causes of statistics rather than just trying to maintain the statistics would be a much better, more intelligent, and easy to vote on resolution. Until I see such a proposal, it is better to let nations handle their own conservation issues and make their own intelligent decisions than to blanket statement the issue and kill the rational approach to conservation.

You're speculating about effects that probably won't happen or won't matter. This resolution doesn't magically protect all animals, but it surely is a step in the right direction. That's why I voted for.
Speculation is the job of any good U.N. member. The fact that your tax rate isn't going to go up to 100 percent as a result of this resolution means little to me. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you because the effect will be to increase your environment and decrease some other statistic, as the resolutions almost automatically do. I don't assume that as proof of the resolutions wording not meaning exactly what it says, and neither should you.

What matters is that we have a resolution on the books that actually creates such a horrific impossibility of spending and organization - and is even more absolute and immediate than the last one I repealed on this same reasoning, which was funded on donation and therefore impossible to even get off the ground. This one actually takes the money out of your pockets - and it uses it in a worthless and detrimental manner.

I don't want to have to repeal this resolution because by then the damage will already have been done. This is a horrific example of how to handle environmental issues and as an environmental nation Pojonia will not stand for it.

"survival of the fittest...by means of natural selection..."

My nation votes no, this resolution is nonsense in the guise of environmental concern.

"survival of the fittest...by means of natural selection..."Survival of the fittest and natural selection is one thing. Species becoming extinct due to human destruction and interference with nature is another. I'm terribly sorry but by your last post you demonstrate no understanding whatsoever of darwinism, natural selection or evolution.

The Republic of Eurinia vehemently objects to this proposal. We do however feel that protecting the environment is of a global interest (when speaking of things we all share--air and water). However, no nation should be allowed to supercede the decisions of another nation when it comes to resources contained entirely within one nation.

Nor should the larger nations who can afford to enact such a measure, dictate to the smaller nations (whose people have to eat, and whose industries are in their infancies), what is an acceptable use of THEIR resources!!!

I think a better alternative would be to set up animal sancturies on UN Territories; where every nation would be able to donate species, and every other nation be able to visit (and rest assured, that they won't be killed).

Any other option, is government gown awry.

Erm Sulla.
Just wondering old pal?
If you are here, and I am Here........ Who is commanding the expedition to the 40th floor of the UN Building? :D

Don't worry old son, The gunnery sgts of the Palentine Marines are more than capable of carrying on without us. As they say in OCS,
"Listen to your Sergent!" We'd just be in their way.

The Republic of Eurinia vehemently objects to this proposal. We do however feel that protecting the environment is of a global interest (when speaking of things we all share--air and water). However, no nation should be allowed to supercede the decisions of another nation when it comes to resources contained entirely within one nation.

Nor should the larger nations who can afford to enact such a measure, dictate to the smaller nations (whose people have to eat, and whose industries are in their infancies), what is an acceptable use of THEIR resources!!!

I think a better alternative would be to set up animal sancturies on UN Territories; where every nation would be able to donate species, and every other nation be able to visit (and rest assured, that they won't be killed).

Any other option, is government gown awry.


And I totally blame this on you. It's totally your fault. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Treating God's creatures so poorly.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4202734.stm

The Grand Duchy of Olwe will fully support this resolution. But we do have a question:

What are the limits, if any, on penalties for hunting endangered species? Because currently in Olwe, poachers lose whatever body parts they take from the animals they butchered (in other words, they usually wind up getting the death penalty in a roundabout way). Since this is quite the effective deterrent, I would like to keep this system intact, at least on the national level. However, some pansy nations (sorry about the lack of diplomacy, but I can't think of what else to call them) might consider this barbaric and want to impose their beliefs upon Olwe through the UNCoESB, and I want to know how much freedom to deal with internal issues relating to the UNCoESB nations will have.

I agree with this new plan to protect the endangered species wholeheartedly and it has my vote all the way.

,LEB Leader of the Gaidhin

In reply to your question regarding limits on penalties.
It has been left to the nations do decide in the case of species of national importance. In the cases where the species are deemed endangered however, If the measures applied by the nation where the offense takes place are deemed not stern enough to have an effect, the nation will be informed. If there is no subsequent increase in severity of the minimum penalty the UN will step in and use the resources at its disposal. These would include international warrants and criminal charges. Also a nation deemed uncooperative will and can be charged with disregarding a UN resolution and ultimately removed from the UN.

Such laws are always used to damage human lives. They become political tools used by activists to control, not protect. I am afraid that if this is to become a law of this body, then I must respectfully exit.

Empire of Xalen representative
Tomar Moss

But the fact remains that the amount of animals that go extinct numbers in the thousands if not tens of thousands per day.
Do you mean to say the 'amount of animal species'? If that is the case than I would have to dissagree. Unless you are broadly defining the term 'animal' to include every species within the Animal Kingdom, I cannot accept that without straight facts.

Now take into account that some nations are dirt poor. Do they pay the same amount and go bankrupt, or do they pay a percentage? This resolution allows no flexibility in terms of paying the cost. You just pay it.
I agree. The resolution almost implies, "Full funding shall be granted for the escalation of steps to conserve the species (despite whatever costs that entials)"

[The resolution] is inherently flawed in its awesome power.
I don't think the problem is that it grants the State or UN too much power, but that it's not specific enough as to what those powers are, and how they are applied. I realize the resolution is already a lengthy one, and the author has stated how Article seven would have been expanded if there was room, but it would be a disservice to the endangered species and ourselves within the UN if the resolution was left unexact.

A resolution regarding the causes of statistics rather than just trying to maintain the statistics would be a much better, more intelligent, and easy to vote on resolution.
I agree once again. However, I think the current resolution still meets decent standards. Furthermore, if this resolution passes, it will be much easier to pass future conservation laws addressing the specific causes of species extinction. We need to save the species from extinction before we can start placing them in prestine, natural environments.

We do however feel that protecting the environment is of a global interest (when speaking of things we all share--air and water). However, no nation should be allowed to supercede the decisions of another nation when it comes to resources contained entirely within one nation.
Actually, we collectively share all aspects of the environment, including animal species. Animals have the ability to move across national boundaries, and most species are located in more than one specific nation. Destroying animals and their habitats will only force them to move, and create problems elsewhere. (Like in cities or farmlands, where their presence threatens human activity.)

I think a better alternative would be to set up animal sancturies on UN Territories; where every nation would be able to donate species, and every other nation be able to visit
Well, why don't we just put them all in zoos? That way, they could still survive, and we wouldn't have to give up desirable lands. Also, many species require specific climates and environments, you can't just put a species in any place you like, they require special attention.

And I totally blame this on you. It's totally your fault. You should be ashamed of yourself. Treating God's creatures so poorly.
Were you joking? Although I'm unsure of exactly whom you're speaking of, it should be apparent to you that the ecosystems of the world are all inter-connected, and a break in the food chain in one place will hurt or possibly kill many more than just the endangered species at risk. No single person or nation is responsible for this. We all share this world, and should all care for it in turn.

Because currently in Olwe, poachers lose whatever body parts they take from the animals they butchered
What if poachers take the antlers of an antelope, the horn of a rhino, or the wings of an eagle? People obviously don't have those structures.

What if poachers take the antlers of an antelope,

Scalp 'em.

the horn of a rhino,

Next best thing to a nose.

or the wings of an eagle?

Wings are just modified forelimbs. Goodbye arms.

Just being helpful... that's not policy in Reformentia.

So . . . what happens when an endangered species enviornment conflicts with a nation's industry? Say if Trout fishing interferred with an endangered species of algae? Would any country that relied on trout fishing cease to exist? Could a rare species of weed shut down cattle ranges and decimate beef dependent countries? Will these countries recieve no UN aid or recompense?

The people of the CRRC are avid sportsmen and love the enviornment but we cannot abide by holding animal's welfare above human welfare in some instances.

Additionally, wouldn't cutting off of scalps and arms be against UN resolutions against torture? The CRRC is new to the UN but this is how we understand things.

<snip>
Furthermore, if this resolution passes, it will be much easier to pass future conservation laws addressing the specific causes of species extinction. We need to save the species from extinction before we can start placing them in prestine, natural environments.
<snip>


Actually the opposite could easily be true. Any resolutions dealing with specific species could easily be deemed redundant by the mods, thus blocking the proposal. (there's a link to a board where that question was asked earlier on this topic, I just can't find it right now)


So . . . what happens when an endangered species enviornment conflicts with a nation's industry? Say if Trout fishing interferred with an endangered species of algae? Would any country that relied on trout fishing cease to exist? Could a rare species of weed shut down cattle ranges and decimate beef dependent countries? Will these countries recieve no UN aid or recompense?


Well in the cases of you examples, nothing. Algae and weeds aren't protected under this resolution because they aren't animals. I see your point though.

I believe the subheading on the resolution answers your questions:
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
So yes, your industry will suffer.

Algae and weeds are in fact part of the enviroment, however.

Originally Posted by New Hamilton
And I totally blame this on you. It's totally your fault. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think I'm going to have to quote Fishyguy here, "are you joking"!!!!! The world's ecosystems are interconnected, far out of the control of any one Nation; I believe whole-heartedly in protecting wildlife; however, to iterate, I believe that this policy encroaches on National sovereignty. No larger nation, should demand of smaller more fragile nations, how to conduct their own internal business; when, the larger nations don't face the problems of the smaller. What should people eat; what would happed to businesses and infrastructure totally based on gaming?! How can anyone demand that a smaller nation possibly stunt their own development, when the same hasn't been asked of the larger nations.

In fact, Eurinia takes an awsome amount of pride, in protecting our wildlife. In fact, the Elephant, our national animal, is protected--and being so, is thriving!! This just illustrates my point, the elephant is flourishing becuase of a NATIONAL decision of Eurinia; not, a hyper-powered UN.

Originally Posted by Fishyguy
Actually, we collectively share all aspects of the environment, including animal species. Animals have the ability to move across national boundaries, and most species are located in more than one specific nation. Destroying animals and their habitats will only force them to move, and create problems elsewhere. (Like in cities or farmlands, where their presence threatens human activity.)

Actually friend, we don't share in all aspects of the environment (namely animal species). Yes, many animals do move across national boundaries; however, many--land species, do not. Regardless of this, I still find your points to be moot. Wherever the animal species are presently located, they are the immediate responsibility of that nation--and should therefore be under the entire domain of that nation; unless they were protected by US sanctuaries.

Originally Posted by Fishyguy:
Well, why don't we just put them all in zoos? That way, they could still survive, and we wouldn't have to give up desirable lands. Also, many species require specific climates and environments, you can't just put a species in any place you like, they require special attention.

I believe that if you ACTUALLY read my original point, you woudn't of wrote this. What I said was that sanctuaries should be set up on UN LANDS--plural. The UN has terretory around the world. And to allow governments to donate species to those sanctuaries--with a friendly climate to that animal. Then this wouldn't be a problem.

I think the real issue here, is your nation, and nations like it, that are so idealistic and closed-minded, that compromise is impossible!!! I don't disagree with protecting wildlife, I disagree with the encroachment on National sovereignty; these issues are best decided by individual States; and not a UN down-trodden with pseudo-environmentalist-revolutionaries; like yourself

The Rogue Nation of Van Rubenia appreciates that this bill was authored with nothing but the best intentions at heart, but we have some issues, not of a poilitical nature so much as a moral nature. Namely, is it our place as humans to take it upon ourselves to protect the environment? Before you discount us as a nation of environmentally unfriendly cretins, hear me out. The idea of natural selection requires that genetically unfit species die off in order to make room for more genetically fit species. With this in mind, couldn't it negatively affect the genetic health of the biosphere as a whole to make efforts to protect and repopulate species which are "endangered"? Might not the fact that they are endangered indicate that they ought to die out? Species have been eliminated by other species often before (forgive me, I do not have a speicific example of such an event, but animal species have certainly gone extinct before, and certainly not all of them were as a result of environmental catastrophes). Why should human-eliminated species be any more tragic? There have even been mass extinctions before, and although I doubt if any of them were due to the actions of a species, why would it be reprehensible even if there were a mass extinction due to humankind? I am not advocating the mass slaughter of species or anything like that, but I do wonder whether it is morally right to protect species.

This whole concept of environmental protection, in my opinion, mirrors the arrogance that, ironically, environmental protection advocates often lament of mankind; that is, that humans are arrogantly treating the earth as their own property, to which they, as humans, have exclusive rights. Well, this seems to me merely another incarnation of this attitude, although admittedly a more pleasant one. We assume that we know what is best for the fate of the environment, and that we know who must be saved and what must be done to do so. We are, despite the claims of many, animals, just like a squirrel or dolphin or whale or kea (our national bird). To claim that we are not is arrogant and arbitrary.

Note that this is not a criticism of the author of the bill or the supporters of the bill, merely a criticism of a general attitude. Until my qualms have been laid to rest about the legitimacy of this bill, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote in favor of this resolution.

In reply to your question regarding limits on penalties.
It has been left to the nations do decide in the case of species of national importance. In the cases where the species are deemed endangered however, If the measures applied by the nation where the offense takes place are deemed not stern enough to have an effect, the nation will be informed. If there is no subsequent increase in severity of the minimum penalty the UN will step in and use the resources at its disposal. These would include international warrants and criminal charges. Also a nation deemed uncooperative will and can be charged with disregarding a UN resolution and ultimately removed from the UN.

Okay, thanks. We can still execute them... that's all I wanted to know.

As great lovers of animals, especially our furry friend the jackrabbit, the Empire of Invisionize supports this proposal wholeheartedly. While we feel natural selection should be allowed to take its course, we also think that humans are hunting many animals to near extinction. This new body may help greatly.

Thanks,
Michael Merritt
UN Ambassador, The Empire of Invisionize

I... understand the concern of those who wrote this bill and I am no hunter. Yet do we not infringe on the rights of our fellow humans by stopping them from hunting wild beasts? Those that do care can make a place to look after the beasts but those who want to hunt, unless of my own royal animals, can do so.

My land is small and I can not afford the blow to buissness but if the bill passes, I will obey as a UN member. I think though we should look after humans first and work is still needed on that front.

Warlord Emperor of Imperial Line and UN Ambassador
Jude Takerath
The Holy Empire of Cuation

If industry suffers, the economy suffers. If the economy suffer, the people suffer. If the people suffer they will either have to be supported by the UN or they will drop out and do whatever is needed to survive - protected enviornments or not.

This will most likely impact small countries that are not able to have a diversified economy the most. Is the UN merely a tool for the priveledged large countries to dicate their Ivory Tower morality?

Not taking this into account is dooming this bill to failure. Worse yet, it will increase human suffering.

I... understand the concern of those who wrote this bill and I am no hunter. Yet do we not infringe on the rights of our fellow humans by stopping them from hunting wild beasts? Those that do care can make a place to look after the beasts but those who want to hunt, unless of my own royal animals, can do so.


If the species is not endangered then you can still hunt it. This resolution regulates the hunting of endangered animals.

Local Bans shall be instituted on hunting of the endangered animal until such time as it is deemed safe to do so. Quotas shall then be applied to the hunting of the recovering species.
Article 7:Full Escalation.
Where a Species of animal has come dangerously close to world extinction levels, The UN shall impose a Full escalation of Protection to the species. All hunting of the species shall be expressly forbidden.

If the species is not endangered then you can still hunt it. This resolution regulates the hunting of endangered animals.

What about those whose buisness relys on those endangered animals? What about human freedom to hunt what they want? Buisness is still affected and there are more important matters then the wealthfare of a few animals unable to adapt. Why not let nature takes its course?

Warlord Emperor of Imperial Line and UN Ambassador
Jude Takerath
The Holy Empire of Cuation

So, as an example, how would this bill effect animals like pandas? Their enviornment is getting reduced which makes it difficult for them to live outside of zoos. Does this count as hunting? The enviornment is reduced because local industry requires it to keep running. Is there compensation? Finally, if this applies to things outside of hunting, what if an animal species is going extinct naturally? Extinction isn't always caused by humans.

What about those whose buisness relys on those endangered animals? What about human freedom to hunt what they want? Buisness is still affected and there are more important matters then the wealthfare of a few animals unable to adapt. Why not let nature takes its course?

Warlord Emperor of Imperial Line and UN Ambassador
Jude Takerath
The Holy Empire of Cuation

If you rely on endangered animals to source products, then quite frankly, you're asking for trouble. In addition, surely you would want to preserve these animals so in future you could hunt them to keep your business profitable?
As for letting nature take its course, this resolution deals with man-induced extinctions and endangerement, therefore the point is moot.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The resolution has passed, and I myself concede the argument. I made a mistake regarding Clause 1, not realizing that an executive branch of the comittee would be formed to consider what should be regarded as endangered rather than immediately applied. There are still flaws in the overall resolution but I applaud your efforts.

congrats

Indeed, congratulations everyone who helped pass this.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby

Compliance Ministry
Received: 4 hours ago Laws have been enacted to bring the Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians into compliance with the United Nations resolution "UNCoESB".

The Delegation for the Region of the Realm of Hibernia wishes to thank all the nations and members of the UN who voted for Resolution # 119 UNCoESB.
We would also like to thank everyone who participated in this debate no matter what your views.

As promised we now see resolutions # 70 "Banning Whaling & # 106 "Protection of Dolphins Act as redundant and we shall endevour to have them repealed at the earliest possible convenience so as to save our nations the wasted funding.

We would especially like to thank the Nation of Yeldan UN Mission, and any other nation who Posted in this forum in defence of the resolution for contributing to the passing of the Bill.

Prince Esheram Byron,
Chief Negotiator for the Delegation of the Realm of Hibernia.

The Dominion of the Machine Spirit thanks the UN for raising income tax three percent with this bill. We are sure any other country that has any agrarian industry also thanks the UN.

The Dominion of the Machine Spirit thanks the UN for raising income tax three percent with this bill. We are sure any other country that has any agrarian industry also thanks the UN.

Your farmers will thank you in future for preserving natural habitats and wildlife, that can be harnassed as a resource for agrarian profit in many cases. In addition, your raised income tax levels will give you the money for compensation and support for your embattled agrarian experts.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

A very well written law and a widely successful result. Congratulations to all.

The Dominion of the Machine Spirit thanks the UN for raising income tax three percent with this bill. We are sure any other country that has any agrarian industry also thanks the UN.
The subsequent repeals because of this bill will save you 6% when they are passed and will save you from any further taxation by other singular species proposals due to the fact that UNCoESB also will make them redundant!

You can thank me later! :D

Ausserland congratulates the delegation from Venerable Libertarians on the passage of this fine resolution.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

On behalf of The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda, and the region of The Pleiades, we congratulate The Hibernian Kingdom of Venerable libertarians on the passage of this fine resolution.

Next best thing to a nose.
ahh, touché. Good point about the wings=forelimbs, now that I think about it, you're correct.

Additionally, wouldn't cutting off of scalps and arms be against UN resolutions against torture?
Yes, I believe so. lol

Actually the opposite could easily be true. Any resolutions dealing with specific species could easily be deemed redundant by the mods, thus blocking the proposal.
Exactly, resolutions dealing with specific species should be considered redundant. What I said was, "it will be much easier to pass future conservation laws addressing the specific causes of species extinction." Causes and species are not one and the same. Instead of submitting a proposal saying "We need to save such and such species because..." It will be easier to pass a resolution saying "BLANK is a huge cause of environmental concern. Noting the UNCoESB, which states '...' It is critical to provide protection to species against BLANK." Not a perfect example, but I hope you see the difference. It's addressing an underlying cause of species extinction, not the fact that a single species is endangered.

Algae and weeds are in fact part of the enviroment, however.
No matter, because they are not protected under this resolution.

I believe that if you ACTUALLY read my original point, you woudn't of wrote this. What I said was that sanctuaries should be set up on UN LANDS--plural.
I realized the use of the plural but chose to respond because it's the next logical step in the chain. First you establish sanctuaries, then you narrow it down to zoos, and pretty soon, you're left with just a few breeder pairs for an entire species, completely dependent on our intervention for the continuation of their species. I believe it better to leave species in a natural setting, but human encroachment is making this more difficult.

these issues are best decided by individual States; and not a UN down-trodden with pseudo-environmentalist-revolutionaries; like yourself
Sweet, I really like the Title you gave me, thank you.

- pseudo-environmentalist-revolutionary Fishyguy

I would like to congratulate those who proposed the bill on their succes. I will comply and look forward to working with you all again. To those who argued with me, your points are valid ones and I'm glad for you that the endangered animals are now protected

Warlord Emperor of Imperial Line and UN Ambassador
Jude Takerath
The Holy Empire of Cuation