NationStates Jolt Archive

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.

REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.

CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.

PROPOSING:

1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.
1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.

2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.
2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.

3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.

Could you give a specific example to back this up?

REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.

Agreed

CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.

Which therefore raises to questions:

1). Why propose regulation?

2). Surely this would guarantee that any attempt at regulation would be invalidated due to this very sentence?

PROPOSING:

1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.
1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.

Why would it be necessary to clone the national leader, is this not rather too specific? Additionally, the second violates civil liberties and privacy, thus constituting a graver threat, in our opinion, than the risks mentioned by you as justification for cloning.

2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.
2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.

2a is laudable, 2b would be extremely difficult to enforce.

3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.

What about theraputic cloning? Or cloning for couples who are childless? (which we do not support) The remit is far too narrow and too partial and would need a serious redraft prior to being acceptable.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.

The nations of NS are actually spread across a large number of globes, not all of which are versions of Earth, and some non-globular worlds (such as the Discworld, and the world in which 'Narnia' is located) as well.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.

Where? Is that actually stated anywhere to be how the rapid population-growth that NS nations enjoy works?

REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.

True, but then that applies if they're reproducing by more conventional methods as well...

CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.

Agreed. So why bother with this proposal?

PROPOSING:
1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.

Just leaving it at "emergencies", with only one example given, leaves national governments with one heck of a loophole to exploit.

1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.

Many nations may lack the capability to achieve this. Are you suggesting that the UN itself obtain & make available the necessary equipment? Oh, and nations' UN delegates aren't necessarily their leaders...

2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.

What category would you be submitting this proposal under? That particular clause looks like a 'Global Disarmament' measure to me, but the rest of your suggestions don't really seem to fit into that category...

2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.

Compliance with UN resolutions by member-nations is automatically compulsory... unless they find & exploit a valid loophole, in which case they'd have a valid legal defence against the imposition of sanctions too.

3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.

Basic 'sapient rights', within the rules of the UN & the nations concerned, certainly: Automatic inheritance of those predecessors' jobs, I'd rather leave as a a matter to be determined by national laws... Some nations really might want NOT to reinstate a leader who's just got himself/herself/itself (and maybe many other people too) killed because of his/her/its own stupidity...

If a person's been assassinated, I am under the impression that it's too late to "upload the contents of the brain"?

Um...sorry, but

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3735/crad48tr.png

Reproductive cloning doesn't work like in the movies. For starters, modern tech nations don't have any way to read, let alone copy, the information in the human mind. And, more relevantly, cloning doesn't mean making a carbon copy of a person in their current form. It simply means making a new baby with the same DNA as the person you're cloning. Kind of like an identical twin, only born much later - and less similar, because it will grow up in a very different environment. It is naive to embrace genetic determinism to the point where you would believe that a clone is effectively the same person.

This is totally unacceptable. Optischer values Science and research and will fight against anyone who threatens it's freedoms.

Um...sorry, but

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3735/crad48tr.png

Reproductive cloning doesn't work like in the movies. For starters, modern tech nations don't have any way to read, let alone copy, the information in the human mind. And, more relevantly, cloning doesn't mean making a carbon copy of a person in their current form. It simply means making a new baby with the same DNA as the person you're cloning. Kind of like an identical twin, only born much later - and less similar, because it will grow up in a very different environment. It is naive to embrace genetic determinism to the point where you would believe that a clone is effectively the same person.

That, and if you wanted to "clone" your national leader, using the "brain upload" method, you'd STILL have to wait 30-odd years before they were mature enough to lead your country. ;)

That, and if you wanted to "clone" your national leader, using the "brain upload" method, you'd STILL have to wait 30-odd years before they were mature enough to lead your country. ;)

Assuming that the earlier version of them was 'mature'... ;-)

What if you could develop a advanced aging process? It could speed up growth, and slow down when the clone was old enough?

Why would national leaders be the only people allowed to be re-cloned and have their knowledge "uploaded"? What about your average, run-of-the-mill genius? And what if the successor to the national leader was more adept at the job than his or her late predecessor?

That, and the fact that cloning creates embryos, not full-grown, capable people.

I am, however, quite interested in this "brain-uploading" business. How exactly would one go about "uploading" this knowledge, and then inserting it into the brain of their clone? And could this technology conceivably be used to either brainwash completely or highly enrich the intelligence of entire populations?

Why would national leaders be the only people allowed to be re-cloned and have their knowledge "uploaded"? What about your average, run-of-the-mill genius?

Perhaps Libratonia doesn't have one?

What if instead of cloning, you could do a brain upload into an android? It would get rid of the need for a body, and you only need to make cosmetic changes to make it look like the real person, since it has the person's mind!

What if instead of cloning, you could do a brain upload into an android? It would get rid of the need for a body, and you only need to make cosmetic changes to make it look like the real person, since it has the person's mind!

That sounds a bit like Frankenstein, but with robots instead of corpses. A frightening idea when applied to international politics.

Frankenstein was the creation of life from old corpses. This robot is in fact the old person, who has been preserved inside a robot's body. It could be useful as a container until a replicate body has been produced.

Frankenstein was the creation of life from old corpses. This robot is in fact the old person, who has been preserved inside a robot's body. It could be useful as a container until a replicate body has been produced.

In Frankenstein, if I remember correctly, they inserted a brain into the old corpse and set the corpse back to life. Either way, the issue at hand is immortality - this could concievably allow national leaders to live forever, and in nations such as mine where the rule is hereditary and a leader's reign ends with his or her life, this could prove catastrophic. And what if this technology fell into the wrong hands?

Then you'd have to reattach the wrong hands to the right handless body.

Or the world could be overrun with a bunch of power-hungry, immortal zombies, depending on how much of a literalist you are.

We wouldn't necessarily be immortal, since we'd still require all that robots required. And we'd require mental exercises. Not to mention, we'd need to be waterproof.

But those things could be supplied for an indefinite period of time, without the android ever undergoing the natural aging process that prevents humans rom being immortal.

And even if the robot were cut off from its robot supplies, couldn't its brain just be re-uploaded and put into another robot?

Not if the memory chip or brain equivalent had degraded through extended un-use.

Ok

1) Premise is bad. You dictated RP environment "facts" to people, they aren't going to be happy
2) I can support 2, but nothing else in the entire proposal.

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.

REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.

CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.

PROPOSING:

1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.
1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.

2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.
2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.

3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.

[swoons with sudden migraine at irrationality and unrealism]

Where to begin....

a) Population problems? What, do you think that millions of shmoes on the street are going to be making dozens of copies of themselves, at a $.99 apiece bargain price? Please. Cloning, reproductive or otherwise, has no relevance to population problems. What motive do most people have for cloning themselves? Sure, there are huge potential uses for it - but I somehow doubt the probability of scenario where there is any significant effect on world population attributable to reproductive human cloning, especially not within a time frame where the whole idea of meatbody population and associated problems isn't an anachronism.

b) Mind uploading is a good thing to bring up, but you completely miss the implications of your own point - why have a body at all? Who needs much in the way of biological immortality when you can be a posthuman upload forever, or until AI-created Economics 2.0 renders you unable to pay for your own digital upkeep.... By the time people have the resources and motive to move from informational to material existence and vice-versa at the drop of a hat, using cloning, the concept of scarcity, bioorganism population problems, and sole inhabitation of one planet will be meme-fossils.

c) Riiiight....superhuman warriors? Been reading a few too many XMen comics recently? Where are you getting these doomsday scenarios? Realize that in any nation advanced enough to create an army, the use of infantry and living individual 'warriors' would be on the way out, and in any nation that still used armies of 'warriors' in battle, technology would very probably not be advanced enough to do it.

And even if it did happen, how practical, enforceable, or useful are economic sanctions on such an obviously technologically advanced, militarily strong economic powerhouse of a nation?

d) What if a clone, or upload instance (a.k.a. copy, eigensibling, fork, ghost, etc.) exists simultaneously with its predecessor? What if there are several different instances of a given person, which are frequently reintegrated with the prime instance? What regulations cover the rights of sufficiently diverged instances to petition for status as a separate being? Do new instances inherit debts, assets, titles, etc.? Does 'prime' status go to the newest or oldest instance? What criterion determine whether an instance has diverged enough to register as a unique citizen?

As you can see, this resolution with its applications to/mentions of both cloning and uploading, opens a vast can of worms and then tries to spit out a few insufficient, simplistic, irrational regulations - it is the farthest thing from what would be necessary to even begin to cover this topic.

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.
REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.
CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.
PROPOSING:
1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.
1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.
2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.
2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.
3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.

Since in resolution 56 clones have the same rights as normal humans then any action on the process of their coming to being here needs to be also applied to normal humans who came into this world by birth or as some believe were simply created by some highter power or evolved from a lower from of animal into human.. or you discriminate against them by restricting or limiting the process that got them here in this word as they are.... Thus you are going into Intervention not Creation, or Evolution as far as clones are concerned and not doing it for normal humans who they are equal to as far as rights go under...:


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

So as long as this just applies to clones and not normal humans or so called genetically engineered persons it discriminates against clones who have equal rights with these under Resolution 56.

As we have stated in debate on other issue Zeldon has for at least 14 generations had an effective cloning program and many of our citizens are clones. Any action to restrict the process by which we came to be is to us and assualt on our life. It would be like saying Creation or Evolution should not be also that the natual birth process or any form to better it should not be. As all processes have problems and can be abused and thus it is up to individual nations that use the process to deal with any abuse of a given process not the UN especialy one dealing with the creation of life that becomes citizens of a given nation. Thus we know how cloning can be abused and feel this is a proposal that would abuse the process rather than stop any abuse of it.

As we don't clone simply because a person is rich or famous the process is a very old and formal one for us. Also we do not transfer mind memory over to the next person in the cloning process. As we fully believe that a clone is a new individual just looks like his ancestor sort of like twin of that person... Subject to think for themselves and become single separate productive citizens of our nation. Here it's a form of producing children to carry on a family genetic blood line where normal reproduction is not working. The original process was established to create workers for certain dangerous tasks seen not safe for normal humans, but over time clones have become equal and very productive citizens of our nation.

Zeldon Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon
Generation 12 Clone

WAKE ME UP....

Why are we talking about taking memory from one dead brain and moving it to a new one?

Why are we not working to improve that person that already lives life span so that they can live longer and have a better life.. in a new body or machine?

We need to work to improve what we are not move it over to something else. Also we need to do this for all citizens not just those deamed the most important and best of the lot as each individual has a place here and inputs the natural order of things. This says national leaders but not all of those that are working to improve life are leaders of a nation. Also these leaders will need folks to follow them so... where do they come from.. as the process will at some point catch up with these so called leaders and bite them where the sun don't shine..

c) Riiiight....superhuman warriors?

Hey, if people can have sentient penguins in their country and orcs and kobolds and all that crap, I can have superhuman warriors. It's more plausible than one of the stupidest animals on the planet suddenly deciding that it's sentient.

I've just been reminded that George W. Bush is currently president of RL USA. However, this does NOT invalidate my previous statement.

By the way, have you heard? Stalin was attempting to breed an army of super-humans for HIS army. Sure, he didn't believe in genes, so it was wasted, but since machines haven't done much good for countries in the last few decades (Cold War/nukes, Iraq/WMDs), people might just decide that perhaps chucking a few invincible super-beings in could be worth a shot.

this was a much better proposal from a long time ago....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=311899

By the way, have you heard? Stalin was attempting to breed an army of super-humans for HIS army.

Yes, by trying to cross humans with apes... !

Well, science and empirical thought were pretty much frozen back then, and nobody wanted to tell Stalin "Hey, you know how chromosones don't exist? Well, funny story... the Brits just proved us wrong."

This draft was really just to see what aspects of the proposal are considered childish, and which are actually worth furthering. It'll probably be useful.

We wouldn't necessarily be immortal, since we'd still require all that robots required. And we'd require mental exercises. Not to mention, we'd need to be waterproof.

You're completely missing the point of uploading. Why have any kind of body at all? All an uploaded person needs is energy, memory capacity, processing power, and bandwidth, all of which can be supplied in spades. It wouldn't be any harder to run your country and affairs from digital reality, and it would certainly be a more comfortable existence. Why live in Reality 1.0 when you can dwell in a plethora of custom-designed virtual universes you have physics-defying managment ackles to?

Hey, if people can have sentient penguins in their country and orcs and kobolds and all that crap, I can have superhuman warriors. It's more plausible than one of the stupidest animals on the planet suddenly deciding that it's sentient.

Plausible, but pointless. A species just is; that's what your race is. If your nation's dominant organism is sapient penguins, whatever. But stuff like superhuman warriors has to have a logical basis; why would anyone make them? What's the point or probability?

I've just been reminded that George W. Bush is currently president of RL USA. However, this does NOT invalidate my previous statement.

Lol, that was actually pretty funny....

By the way, have you heard? Stalin was attempting to breed an army of super-humans for HIS army. Sure, he didn't believe in genes, so it was wasted, but since machines haven't done much good for countries in the last few decades (Cold War/nukes, Iraq/WMDs), people might just decide that perhaps chucking a few invincible super-beings in could be worth a shot.

Machines haven't done much good? What in the Nine Hells are you talking about? What exactly do you think makes the U.S. the world's most dominant military force? What do you call guns, tanks, fighter aircraft, unmanned drones, etc. etc.? Your statement makes no sense. In the very short term, it would certainly help an army if its soldiers were all genetically enhanced, but an ultra-advanced mechanized army (such as my nation's) would easily supersede that.

In the very short term, it would certainly help an army if its soldiers were all genetically enhanced, but an ultra-advanced mechanized army (such as my nation's) would easily supersede that.

Ironically, I was watching a show on the Military channel today when a tank battalion commander said the exact opposite. Granted, a tank vs. a grunt would obviously be one sided, but a tank vs. 100 grunts, or 10 tanks vs. 1000 grunts would be either a fair fight or a fight in favor of the infantrymen. And in a modern or futuristic engagement, when would you ever be sending just ground troops versus a mechanized military? You wouldn't, so your argument of "my tank can blow your soldier away" is based on an idiot commander. Tanks are also big, heavy, and quite slow when in confined spaces. So unless you plan on fighting in open plains only, troops would easily take a tank out in urban combat. I would take super-soldiers anyday over a bunch of tanks. Why? Tanks can't infiltrate your HQ and assasinate the top brass.

Ironically, I was watching a show on the Military channel today when a tank battalion commander said the exact opposite. Granted, a tank vs. a grunt would obviously be one sided, but a tank vs. 100 grunts, or 10 tanks vs. 1000 grunts would be either a fair fight or a fight in favor of the infantrymen. And in a modern or futuristic engagement, when would you ever be sending just ground troops versus a mechanized military? You wouldn't, so your argument of "my tank can blow your soldier away" is based on an idiot commander. Tanks are also big, heavy, and quite slow when in confined spaces. So unless you plan on fighting in open plains only, troops would easily take a tank out in urban combat. I would take super-soldiers anyday over a bunch of tanks. Why? Tanks can't infiltrate your HQ and assasinate the top brass.

You have a very limited view of mechanized warfare. Tanks aren't the possible combat machine. Anything a soldier can do, a machine can do. Smaller, faster, more agile robots modeled on spiders, single wheels, etc., automated aircraft (which pwn pretty much anything) and other more endlessly varied and powerful machines will take over the battlefield. Why can't a group of machines carry the firepower of an entire battalion of infantry, have better armoring, and move nearly as fast? Not only that, but speed-of-light EM transmissions between combat units, video feeds from high-altitude drones giving every 'soldier' a continuous birds-eye view of the theatre, instant changes of plan based upon human control, prediction algorthims, etc. moving faster with better information than any purely human battle group, etc. etc. would all give endless advantages over humans.

Stuff like assassinations would still probably be better performed by highly trained and well-equipped humans, but actual field-of-battle war can be better carried out by optimized machines that can be reconfigured, rebuilt, and enhanced much easier than humans can be trained, genengineered, or cloned, and costs 0 human lives.

Why can't a group of machines carry the firepower of an entire battalion of infantry, have better armoring, and move nearly as fast?Sand.

Sand.

The mechanical and form characteristics of the human body that allow it to move through sand can be replicated in machines, and more efficient means of doing so than the human body's can probably be found and implemented as well.

The mechanical and form characteristics of the human body that allow it to move through sand can be replicated in machines, and more efficient means of doing so than the human body's can probably be found and implemented as well.You missed the point.

How many US Apache helicopters have crashed in Iraq due to problems caused by sand?

How many US servicemen have died due to problems caused by sand?

Mechanical means will always be limited by initial cost and maintanence. Fully automated drones will only be used in limited situations and for specific tasks. Winterizing a vehicle is a laborous process and quite expensive. Winterizing a human involves giving them a coat and long underwear. Furthermore, the more mechnically complicated your device becomes, the more room there is for something to go wrong, and more parts to break.

There ARE aspects of cloning that would bring about too great of a population, but not in the same way that this resolution seems to be insinuating - that is, by preventing innumberable deaths with the expanded knowledge of diseases, not by creating a significant amount of new life. However, I think it can be agreed that huge population is a fairly irrelevant factor on NationStates, with all of its multiple "galaxies" and that sort of thing.

Instead of bothering with all of the population-growth business, why not limit cloning to strictly medical (or, in special cases where it has been widely accepted as a national form of reproduction, reproductive) purposes? Or say "No, you can't clone yourself a million times to grow an army" or "No, you can't clone Britney Spears to keep her in a box in the basement and show her off to your friends"?

(In summary, cloning should not be used for silly purposes.)

(Edit: Or extremely destructive ones.)

I do have a good knowledge of the term mechanized warfare. But I wasn't going to counter every vehicle possible, and Hack already did it as well. Like it or not, no matter what the flyboys keep saying, a breathing human, clone or nautarl born, will still be fighting in a war. Because what happens if you run out of gas (or whatever other fuel your vehicles use)? All humans need is a little grub and some water, much easier to provide. We are also the most advanced weapon out there. Not by strength or firepower, that's a given, but on thinking ability. The Hannibals, the Ghengis Khans, the Pattons of our world won't be able to show their true genius by looking at a battlefield through a tactical sattelite or a UAV. Clones are only an exenstion of that. You can mold them to whatever role they need to fill. The only thing I believe should be limited would be the recreational uses, like a little kid wants a friend so they clone him and give him a buddy. Or some creep needs to satisfy his...urges...and clones his ex. Those things should be banned. But medical and military reasons need to be off-limits.

Regarding the line of thought this thread seems to have taken, humans are much more resiliant than machines for the reasons listed, but also because they have the will to live and to triumph. If a machine is screwed up all it can do is sit there and break; if a soldier gets screwed up, he or she can often force him or herself to keep fighting, just out of the power of the mind.

Regarding the line of thought this thread seems to have taken, humans are much more resiliant than machines for the reasons listed, but also because they have the will to live and to triumph. If a machine is screwed up all it can do is sit there and break; if a soldier gets screwed up, he or she can often force him or herself to keep fighting, just out of the power of the mind.

Yes, exactly, what is a machine fighting for? Does it care if it's country is enslaved? Does it care if the Human race is exterminated? Does it give any thought to killing innocents or giving the enemy a chance to surrender? All machines do is make war less impersonnel, therefore taking the horror out of it, which would make war easier to approach as a viable option. I know I wouldn't feel as bad about killing someone if all I did was press a button on a keyboard compared to pulling a trigger and watching them get hit by it.

Back off the super-soldiers. We pride ourselves in the creation of a clone army that allows our citizens to stay home and keep the economy as strong as ever. Why should we tell some mom her son died because the UN said clone super soldiers were bad?


I believe that Resolution 56 would not allow you to do this since clones are equal to normal humans just as much as those that might be geneticly engineered so go read 56.. As to put only clones into the military may violate their rights not to go in unless normal humans and genetic engineered are also serving in the same fields as them.. As other resolutions would come into effect for clones that apply to others... Thus any action that you might apply to a clone that violates normal human rights would also violate those rights toward the clone or anyone geneticly engineered under Resolution 56. Thus making clones slaves to others for sex or servants or service in the military is a violation of a clones rights as an equal to normal humans, as if you not doing it to the normal humans as their rights then you can't do it to clones... they have same rights as normal humans...

I believe that Resolution 56 would not allow you to do this since clones are equal to normal humans just as much as those that might be geneticly engineered so go read 56.. As to put only clones into the military may violate their rights not to go in unless normal humans and genetic engineered are also serving in the same fields as them.. As other resolutions would come into effect for clones that apply to others... Thus any action that you might apply to a clone that violates normal human rights would also violate those rights toward the clone or anyone geneticly engineered under Resolution 56. Thus making clones slaves to others for sex or servants or service in the military is a violation of a clones rights as an equal to normal humans, as if you not doing it to the normal humans as their rights then you can't do it to clones... they have same rights as normal humans...

Yes, shortly after posting that, I saw Resolution #56, so that post isn't representative because it would be illegal, my mistake.

Biological units will always supercede mechanical units, for the simple fact that one can survive without the other, but not vice versa.

In a discussion of the television series "Firefly," the point was raised that it was improbable that, in a universe set five-hundred years in the future, people would still be using horses, rather than the available hovercraft. Horses graze, hovercraft require fuel. Get two horses, and you might just end up with a third. Get two hovercraft... you've still got two. Maybe one, if they break down and you have to salvage what's left.

Biological units are cheaper and self-replicating. Sure, in a skirmish, you send an automated drone in and it'll get the job done, but any battle that lasts longer than half-an-hour, and you've got to plug in a new set of Energizers.

I'll take well-trained soldiers over an army of robots. Hell, they don't even have to be genetically enhanced.

And don't you underestimate the complexity of the human body. The greatest minds in robotics are incapable of accurately replicating something as basic to us as walking. Remember, we've had quite a while to develop into the wonderful biological monuments we are today.

My reply based totally on the wording of this proposal as I do not have time to read others comments. With this in mind apologies if i am repeating others.

RECOGNIZING the problems given by a global population growth.Indeed a problem. Condoms i keep telling the randy beggers! think they'd listen? not on your nelly.

DISTURBED by the massive increase in population, thanks to cloning and genetic engineering.There is? where? other than a few future tech nations i see no evidence of this?

REALIZING that if the number of citizens outstrips the supply of food, then society and civilization will suffer as a result.Well that is a no brainer.

CONCEDING that cloning itself is a matter for national governments to decide on.respects to natsov.... I like it. A bit of ass kissing will get you far!:D

PROPOSING:

1a) Cloning shall only be used in emergencies, for example if a national leader is assassinated in times of strife.erm forgive me here but if strife is the cause of the national leader being done away with in the first place i dont forsee much will on behalf of the majority on replacing same?

1b) In this case, it will be made compulsory for UN delegates to upload the contents of their mind to a safe storage system, where the mind-data will be stored until substituted by the next week's data.Just wait a second there! I aint uploading anything of mine for some eejit to fool around with. My thoughts are my own unless I decide to share them.

2a) Cloning and genetic engineering to create an army of super-human warriors shall be banned, in order to safeguard those nations who lack the resources to clone or engineer.Lmao Brilliant! equality of nations and all that. I mean it wouldn be fair for my super dooper nation and its massive economy having the advantage of being able to afford a bigger super army of cloned mega soldiers over puny nations. This is simply daft!

2b) In the event that Clause 2a is broken, the countries that break the clause will be sanctioned economically for a suitable period, depending on the extent of their crimes.By who? a Nation with a bigger economy that can afford more cloned super dooper version 2 Mechanoid warrior drones? :D

3) As cloning is to be used only to continue the lives of important leaders, or UN delegates, this leads to the logical conclusion that the clones should be given the same rights as their predecessors.What about the little people? the huddled masses that empower and pay for nations like yours to have a representative to the UN to offer this Bilge as a resolution proposal? Dont they get replacement organs for their defective ones and an increased quality of life?

With all due respect, Go away and come back with something that is not called "Dictator replacement for ever".
Oh and have a Merry Christmas.:)

NOTE TO NOGGERS! before anyone gangs up on me for being harsh i will say this. The proposer will have learned a valuable Lesson in Quality!

EDIT: the ass kissing refrence was sarcasm! :D

Fourhearts says no.

Signed - Sealed - Delivered.

You missed the point.

How many US Apache helicopters have crashed in Iraq due to problems caused by sand?

How many US servicemen have died due to problems caused by sand?

Mechanical means will always be limited by initial cost and maintanence. Fully automated drones will only be used in limited situations and for specific tasks. Winterizing a vehicle is a laborous process and quite expensive. Winterizing a human involves giving them a coat and long underwear. Furthermore, the more mechnically complicated your device becomes, the more room there is for something to go wrong, and more parts to break.

But those are current machines. I'm talking about mechanized warfare, sans the temporal dimension. Just because current incarnations are so, doesn't mean that even near-future advancement won't make things different. Technology improves at an exponentially increasing rate; what's true today becomes less likely to be true tomorrow at accelerating rate over time, and not every country is <= the level of RL Earth.

Also, you think machines have complicated parts? Have you ever taken Anatomy and Physiology? The human body is so complicated it would be breaking down all over the place (and does, really) but for the fact that evolution has screened out or protected against many many problems - but innovation moves a whole hell of a lot faster than blind evolution.

My reply based totally on the wording of this proposal as I do not have time to read others comments. With this in mind apologies if i am repeating others.

Indeed a problem. Condoms i keep telling the randy beggers! think they'd listen? not on your nelly.

respects to natsov.... I like it. A bit of ass kissing will get you far!:D

What about the little people? the huddled masses that empower and pay for nations like yours to have a representative to the UN to offer this Bilge as a resolution proposal? Dont they get replacement organs for their defective ones and an increased quality of life?


EDIT: the ass kissing refrence was sarcasm! :D

On this one take a look at Resolution 56 and you will see that clones as well as genetic engineered are under it equal to so called normal humans so this goes against that resolution in that it singles out clones as storage for the memories of world learders when their own bodies are gone.

As for the condoms the companies that make them have to set a number of defective condoms or they will eventualy lose their buyer/user base.

As for the arse kissing if repeal of gay rights goes through then some nations may hang you for that action...

As Zeldon has clones who are citizens of our nation we feel that all of them are equal to any normal citizen... many better some worse each an individual with the same right under Resolution 56 as any normal human might have. Thus any action to single them out and take rights from them our use them as slaves, super warriors, or storage units for somebodies else's memories is a violation of human rights since they would not do this to normal humans just to clones...

But those are current machines. I'm talking about mechanized warfare, sans the temporal dimension. Just because current incarnations are so, doesn't mean that even near-future advancement won't make things different.

False. Complexity increases the ability of an object to break down and decreases the ability of people to service it: more training is required for the engineers who service it, more faults become non-user-servicable, more replacement parts are needed, the cost of those replacement parts increases, their manufacturing becomes more difficult and time-consuming. Fully automated warfare is utterly impractical because the machines would cost so much more to produce and keep in the field than manually-operated counterparts that they'd be too outnumbered to make a difference.

Compare, for example: a sword has one moving part, and is less high-tech than an M-60 machine gun with many moving parts. The sword's blade can break, but that is the only mechanical failure it can suffer: there are dozens of things that can go wrong with the M-60.

The more complex a mechanical device is, the more it will tend towards disorder unless acted upon from the outside. This is why a modern internal combustion engine needs more maintainance than a bicycle, for example. It's also why a fully-automated military vehicle will require a hellish maintainance schedule.

Also, you think machines have complicated parts? Have you ever taken Anatomy and Physiology? The human body is so complicated it would be breaking down all over the place (and does, really) but for the fact that evolution has screened out or protected against many many problems - but innovation moves a whole hell of a lot faster than blind evolution.

But the body is made up of trillions and trillions of very simple organisms that have a specific thing to do. One makes skin, the other kills stuff, a third carries oxygen, so on and so on. So really, we're quite basic in our biological make-up. The only thing that is complex is our brain and it's the thing that suffers the most if it has a problem. And what would you want to fix? A P51's engine, or some super futuristic ion pulse jet engine? I don't know about you, but the former sounds quite inviting.

False. Complexity increases the ability of an object to break down and decreases the ability of people to service it: more training is required for the engineers who service it, more faults become non-user-servicable, more replacement parts are needed, the cost of those replacement parts increases, their manufacturing becomes more difficult and time-consuming. Fully automated warfare is utterly impractical because the machines would cost so much more to produce and keep in the field than manually-operated counterparts that they'd be too outnumbered to make a difference.

Compare, for example: a sword has one moving part, and is less high-tech than an M-60 machine gun with many moving parts. The sword's blade can break, but that is the only mechanical failure it can suffer: there are dozens of things that can go wrong with the M-60.

The more complex a mechanical device is, the more it will tend towards disorder unless acted upon from the outside. This is why a modern internal combustion engine needs more maintainance than a bicycle, for example. It's also why a fully-automated military vehicle will require a hellish maintainance schedule.

On the other hand....do modern computers need as much physical maintenance as the ones with punch cards and vacuum tubes did?

Really, you're suffering a complete failure of vision - stuck in the paradigm of the past. Why can't machines repair themselvels? Why not nanomechanically? Also, if what you say is true, than why don't humans fall apart every time they hit something too hard, or the air gets cold? Complexity and rugged integrity are obviously not mutually exclusive - life proves that. And as I said, the process of screening, purifying, enhancing, and adapting that has made a tougher human body possible can happen much faster when it occurs at the rate of human mental processes, rather than millenial evolutionary trends.

Another thought: if the national leader's brain could be uploaded in case of his assassination, why would anyone bother to assassinate him anyway?

My Country and I agree... Cloning Creates problems for all but it is also a new idea and thus should be either decided country by country or the issue should be dropped all together. There may in the future be times when we don't fit the criteria for cloning but need to do it anyhow. Also I ask of you to consider that the resolution doesn't specify Humans at all. Cloning could solve many starvation issues. Specification , my friends, can be the spice of life.

We find the scenarios incredulous, we also find this infringes upon the rights of our citizens to breed how they wish. If they feel that cloning themselves would be a good idea, then that is all fine and well.....although we may introduce some legislation to ensure they are of an entirely rational mind.

We cannot endorse this.

On the other hand....do modern computers need as much physical maintenance as the ones with punch cards and vacuum tubes did?

Really, you're suffering a complete failure of vision - stuck in the paradigm of the past. Why can't machines repair themselvels? Why not nanomechanically? Also, if what you say is true, than why don't humans fall apart every time they hit something too hard, or the air gets cold? Complexity and rugged integrity are obviously not mutually exclusive - life proves that. And as I said, the process of screening, purifying, enhancing, and adapting that has made a tougher human body possible can happen much faster when it occurs at the rate of human mental processes, rather than millenial evolutionary trends.
And if, at the same time, such processes are applied to genetic manipulation and biological enhancement, surely even in the future, biological units are superior to mechanical ones.

Really, you're suffering a complete failure of vision - stuck in the paradigm of the past.

And you're speaking in vacuous business jargon. It's not a 'failure of vision' to use common sense.

Why can't machines repair themselvels? Why not nanomechanically?

Because nanotechnology can't do that. Ever.

http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/Nanotech.html

Also, if what you say is true, than why don't humans fall apart every time they hit something too hard, or the air gets cold? Complexity and rugged integrity are obviously not mutually exclusive - life proves that.

Nonsense. Humans are ridiculously delicate compared to inorganic armour, why do you think machines need to have armour to protect their human operators? Humans do 'fall apart' whenever they hit something too hard or the air gets too cold; people die in car crashes and from hypothermia all the time.

However, a human interface is cheaper than a full mechanisation, and humans are more readily available: they are quicker to replace, cheaper, and more flexible.

And if, at the same time, such processes are applied to genetic manipulation and biological enhancement, surely even in the future, biological units are superior to mechanical ones.

Not really. Unless you build such life from the ground up, lifeforms are full of redundancy and inefficiency, and creating new features is hugely more complex. You can build a gun and bolt it onto a machine's circuitry fairly easily, but creating a biological kinetic projectile weapon-organ is an incredibly difficult task, and no matter how advanced bioengineering gets, I doubt it will ever actually be easier than the mechanical equivalent.

Also, biological units wear out rapidly, inevitably, and in a vast variety of different ways, are restricted in exactly where and how they can survive and obtain energy, and have to be grown instead of assembled, though that might become a moot point when we can just whack a couple of coherent matter beams together out in the vacuum of space, download in an informational matrix, and snatch the resultant fully-formed.....anything.

My Country and I agree... Cloning Creates problems for all but it is also a new idea and thus should be either decided country by country or the issue should be dropped all together. There may in the future be times when we don't fit the criteria for cloning but need to do it anyhow. Also I ask of you to consider that the resolution doesn't specify Humans at all. Cloning could solve many starvation issues. Specification , my friends, can be the spice of life.


Would advise you that in some NS nations cloning is not new.. Resolution 56 is evidence that it's something that has been around a while as it got support and was passed by somebody. Our nation tracks back about 14 generations of clones in certain family lines.


We could agree with cloning certain animals for food sources but then there is the problem of feeding them until they are ready for the grill, as one could clone too many say cows and cause problems, especialy is certain virus are passed on from one to next that might not show up in known tests. Then think about using Apes as warriors as could it not be possible to inplant the memories of a low class person and using them for military slaves. Anything can be abused and baning it only makes those want to abuse it do it out of sight and do so many other crimes in getting it done... Make it legal get it out in open and monitor for abuse is the only way to do things.