NationStates Jolt Archive

As research into the study of the human genome continues for the interest human advancement, we as the UN members must take into account the possible consequences of our technology and ensure a fair world for tommorow. We can do so by passing the following measures:

1. No Human Being shall be discriminated against on the basis of genotype. (To prevent the possibility of future eugenics movements)

2. Human Cloning shall be banned for all intensive purposes, excluding UN Resolution # 82 (stem cell research).

3. The creation of Human Embryos for profit shall be banned, they may only be donated in interest of research, and only with the consent of the parent individual.

4. No Corporation, Nation-State, or Individual may have the right to make permanent changes to human gene pool without the consent of UN.



Tell me what u think?

Right off, #2 is a House of Cards violation.

As research into the study of the human genome continues for the interest human advancement, we as the UN members must take into account the possible consequences of our technology and ensure a fair world for tommorow. We can do so by passing the following measures:

1. No Human Being shall be discriminated against on the basis of genotype. (To prevent the possibility of future eugenics movements)

2. Human Cloning shall be banned for all intensive purposes, excluding UN Resolution # 82 (stem cell research).

3. The creation of Human Embryos for profit shall be banned, they may only be donated in interest of research, and only with the consent of the parent individual.

4. No Corporation, Nation-State, or Individual may have the right to make permanent changes to human gene pool without the consent of UN.



Tell me what u think?

I have problems with 2, 3, and 4.

2:I have no problem with Human Cloning for organ farming.

3:The creation of human embryos for profit is up to the individual. If they want to go through 9 months of pregnancy, that's their choice.


4: Many genetic studies could be made to develop better soldiers. This would be useless if this were passed. Also, what about a gene pool that could eliminate disease?

A nation that discovers this should not be forced to share it with the rest of hte UN.

There's already at least one 'future tech' nation within the UN that relies on reproductive cloning...

It's always a pleasure to see a new member of this body making an attempt to contribute, especially when they have the good sense to post a draft here for comment. We're not certain whether we would support this proposal or not, but we think the honorable representative of Windomir is to be commended for the effort. We would offer the following constructive criticism:

1. No Human Being shall be discriminated against on the basis of genotype. (To prevent the possibility of future eugenics movements)

Genotype should be defined in the proposal. Some members may be unfamiliar with the term.

2. Human Cloning shall be banned for all intensive purposes, excluding UN Resolution # 82 (stem cell research).

As the distinguished member from Cluichstan pointed out, this clause contains a "House of Cards" violation, making the proposal illegal. You cannot have a proposal rely in any substantive way on an existing resolution. That's because the older resolution may be repealed, leaving a gaping hole in the later one. Also, you need to make a case for why human cloning should be banned. Finally, we don't understand the term intensive purposes.

3. The creation of Human Embryos for profit shall be banned, they may only be donated in interest of research, and only with the consent of the parent individual.

We're not entirely clear on this. Again, why? Also, why one parent? Would there be cases where two parents should have to consent?

4. No Corporation, Nation-State, or Individual may have the right to make permanent changes to human gene pool without the consent of UN.

Again, a definition of human gene pool is needed. We'd also think that, if you're going to make someone obtain UN consent, you need to say something about how that would work.

We hope these comments will prove useful in continued work on this draft.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

2. Human Cloning shall be banned for all intensive purposes, excluding UN Resolution # 82 (stem cell research).


Instead of "intensive purposes," I think you mean "intents and purposes."


4. No Corporation, Nation-State, or Individual may have the right to make permanent changes to human gene pool without the consent of UN.


This is really iffy, to me. Someone accidentally getting too much radiation could cause a "permanent change to human gene pool" if even one of their genes mutates. One could even say that having a single kid changes the gene pool, because it shuffles genes around into new combinations.

Why should reproductive cloning be illegal? If the technology can be advanced to the point where the success rate is acceptable, and the clones are not likely to be condemned to a short and painful life, and the owner of the genome being copied consents, what business it is of the state how reproduction occurs?

Why should reproductive cloning be illegal? If the technology can be advanced to the point where the success rate is acceptable, and the clones are not likely to be condemned to a short and painful life, and the owner of the genome being copied consents, what business it is of the state how reproduction occurs?

By that same logic, why should we worry about teenage pregnancy? Why should we worry about abortion? Why should we worry about anything?

I understand your point, but to some states there is a moral issue involved. Possibly several. And some states do legislate morality. My nation tends not to, and thus does not care at all about cloning of any sort (as long as all legal rights are given to any beings who are fully formed and "birthed" from the procedure). But others do care.

I'm actually going to disagree with my colleagues and suggest that #2 might actually not be a HoC violation. It says it omits anything covered by UNR 82. If UNR 82 is repealed, nothing gets broken. As such, I think it passes the "stands on its own" test

#1 I like
#2 I would like to hear your reasoning for why this should be done. I also question possible contradiction to UNR 2 but I haven't read #2 in a while so I don't know.....yet
#3 Make it so that the consent can only be made if the choice to abort is made by whomever has the right to make that choice in that nation (to respect the nations that believe it remains solely in the realm of the mother's right on whether to abort or not to abort)
#4 You need a committee of some sort. Else you're suggesting it goes before the floor - which is a metagaming violation.

#2 might actually not be a HoC violation.

It doesn't seem to be one. It is just saying that for with the exception of the activities allowed in Resolution 82, human cloning is illegal. If Resolution 82 was repealed, then there would be no exception, and this proposal would just be more powerful. Also:

permanent changes to human gene pool

This is an iffy statement. What do you define as temporary and permanent? The human gene pool never remains constant -- when somebody is born, it is altered slightly. There is no way to make a permanent change to the gene pool. Perhaps you can make a significant change so that microevolution occurs, but that would probably be a good thing.

Human cloning shall be banned

What's wrong with human cloning? At the very least, they would serve many scientific purposes. It could also have a positive effect on society if many of the brightest people were cloned (I mean, imagine what would happen with hundreds of Einsteins running around).

1. No Human Being shall be discriminated against on the basis of genotype. (To prevent the possibility of future eugenics movements)
This looks good, but you'll probably want to define "genotype", as my colleagues have said. Also, you might want to clarify that you're allowed to discriminate on basis of the effects of the genotype: of course sports organizations want to discriminate on basis of strength, etc.

2. Human Cloning shall be banned for all intensive purposes, excluding UN Resolution # 82 (stem cell research).
Why? This seems like an ethical thing, but, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, it is acceptable and even necessary in some societies.

3. The creation of Human Embryos for profit shall be banned, they may only be donated in interest of research, and only with the consent of the parent individual.
Why not for profit? Technology could advance to the point where it makes sense. I do agree that the parent must consent, however.

4. No Corporation, Nation-State, or Individual may have the right to make permanent changes to human gene pool without the consent of UN.
How would this happen? I agree with my colleagues that a committee is necessary to actually give the consent.

B.Qiro
CeoSecState

There are good reasons to make permanent changes to the human gene pool if you want to live outside on say Venus. Genetic modification to live in hostile environments is often the only way to survive in extremely hostile alien environments. If there are future tech civilizations this could be a problem. For example if they wanted to increase bone density in a high gravity environment, so they could live on the surface, or breathe water on a water world or deep ocean environment it would be a practical thing to do. This is not eugenics.

Clones when they are brought to term should have the same rights as human beings. They are humans. To classify them as not being human creates the opportunity for slavery and oppression of the worst sort. Illegal cloning has the serious potential to happen. Punishing the clone would not be the answer.

It would be very detrimental to have lots of Einsteins-- most people at around 160 iq become impossible to fit with societal norms, they go their own way. They do whatever they want irregardless of normal societal ethics. It would become a problem. Certain genetic manipulations which look positive at first would create lots of problems.

I really do appreciate all the contructive critism, and ideas, I do see the serious flaws in the proposal, but I think most of them come from a lack of explanation, and some definitions are nessesary.

But i think most agree, that there should be some sort of UN regulation on Genetic Research and Human "Advancement." Here is a scenario which explains the 4 laws, and why they are needed together, to create a cohessive reform, and prevent future problems, along with some reforms, to the original text.

As with genetic laws, the scenario, as many of you described lies in the future...
(Rule 1)
Lets say its the year 2030, we have have a near total understanding of human genetics. Scientists across the globe rejoice in their amazing abilities to solve nearly all medical problems by simply manufacturing "perfect people," in the forms of embryos.

Politicians, Medical Experts and Bio-ethicists must try and sort out what the "perfect person" is. What would we cure? Now we are presenented with our first problem. What is a disease? Disease has meaning in terms of viruses and bacteria, but what about genetically?

In the past many groups defined as having a "disease" have now changed, because of cultural standards, although some still see these groups as diseased.

Dwarfism
Deafness
Mental illness
Obesity
Homosexuality
Intersexuality
Autism

The panel agrees, ok ok, we just want to improve general skills, like intellegence, or athletic ability, alter lifespan, perhaps enhance memory.

But the Bio-ethicisist raises a question....Who in the world will have the most access to these "enhancements"? They all know, the wealthy...Now a new problem has arrisen, the possibility of a genetically enhanced upper class of rulers which would threaten the very fabric of many Societies. Or as Philosopher Thomas Hobbes would put, a social war of "Each against all." Some suggest having open access to these enhancements...However how could this acces truly be enforced? Is technology shared globally in such a way that everyone would have access to these advancements? I answer No.

Based on these scenarios, I created Rule 1. There shall be no discrimination of basis of genotype (or one's autonomous genetic identity). The real purpose of this is to stop the possibility of say eleminating Homosexuality or Deafness, People who's genetic identity has become a shared culture.

(Rule 2)
I am will to contend that perhaps there are good arguements for Cloning, and I can agree that in a future tech society this maybe nessescary, however the current UN agreement in simply giving clones human equality and equal rights is not enough. Some suggest that cloning einstien would be a good thing, however, I disagree, Everyone's genetic code, is to some degree their own property, I don't have permission to just go dig someone up and clone them without any account for that persons rights. Not to mention that "Mass Cloning" could have serious consequences in the amount of genetic diversity, and what about possible scenarios such as mass cloned armies, or continualy cloned Ruthless leaders like Hitler? Not to mention that clones are not exact replicas of there predessor, we commonly rule out the power of human experience, and the importance of nuture in creating of an individual. There I am will to withdrawl a "ban" on cloning and offer up a suggestion for a proposal in some sort of clone regulation....

(Rule 3)
Ok, heres the deal with Rule 3. If you buy into the fact that embryos arre future humans, at the very least. You must see the selling of embryos, and even genetically enhanced embryos as mentioned in the prior scenario, as some form of slavery of people in a basic sense, "selling future humans." As well as giving advantages to upper classes, and again opening up the gates for creating a Hobbesian Social war or even a Marxist Class war...in which the future dominance of enhanced and wealthy ppl rule all. However, as I said, Stem Cell Research is needed to even reach the point I am discussing, not to mentions the value of Medical Treatments it will make possible. Parents or Mother (as suggested by some) may donate their embryos in the name of science, in the same way, that when some ppl die (like old ppl) they donate their bodies to science. These individuals can "consent" to this donation. However only a parent/s may consent on behalf of the embryo, therefore I believe "consent" should be defined in each nation-state rather than a dirent rule in the UN.

(Rule 4)
This is the question I pose, who has the right to change the gene pool? Do you? If we "artificially" change our genes, we may perhaps change the code for generations to come, for we will pass on these codes, permanently. The current gene pool is the result of natural forces, or as some say "God" (however i'm athiest, so i'll just say "nature"). Evolution has lead us to the current set of genes which exist between the entire human population. Does any human being have the right to make permanent changes without any check on this decision. Does any Country? Well maybe if the individuals within that country voted...but if they then left there borders and made children...then they have violated the genetic rights of another nation...

My point is "Artificial Genetic Modification" is something which all humans on earth have an interest in. The stability and diversity of the Gene pool is something we all share, it is our mutual self interest to protect this, and treat it with ethical dignity. It only with the "consent" of mankind, that we may even discuss artificial manipulation, and I view the UN as forum for such an agreement. I could forsee a scenario, of a disease which could wipe out mankind, which could require mass genetic manipulation in the interest of protecting Humans as species.

If you more questions feel free to repsond, I apprecaite everyone's input

(Rule 2)
I am will to contend that perhaps there are good arguements for Cloning, and I can agree that in a future tech society this maybe nessescary, however the current UN agreement in simply giving clones human equality and equal rights is not enough. Some suggest that cloning einstien would be a good thing, however, I disagree, Everyone's genetic code, is to some degree their own property, I don't have permission to just go dig someone up and clone them without any account for that persons rights. Not to mention that "Mass Cloning" could have serious consequences in the amount of genetic diversity, and what about possible scenarios such as mass cloned armies, or continualy cloned Ruthless leaders like Hitler? Not to mention that clones are not exact replicas of there predessor, we commonly rule out the power of human experience, and the importance of nuture in creating of an individual. There I am will to withdrawl a "ban" on cloning and offer up a suggestion for a proposal in some sort of clone regulation....
Doesn't cloning require a living individual? In that case, just say no cloning w/o consent of the person being cloned. I see no reason why we shouldn't clone Einstein if Einstein wanted to be cloned, although I doubt that many people would.

(Rule 3)
Ok, heres the deal with Rule 3. If you buy into the fact that embryos arre future humans, at the very least. You must see the selling of embryos, and even genetically enhanced embryos as mentioned in the prior scenario, as some form of slavery of people in a basic sense, "selling future humans." As well as giving advantages to upper classes, and again opening up the gates for creating a Hobbesian Social war or even a Marxist Class war...in which the future dominance of enhanced and wealthy ppl rule all. However, as I said, Stem Cell Research is needed to even reach the point I am discussing, not to mentions the value of Medical Treatments it will make possible. Parents or Mother (as suggested by some) may donate their embryos in the name of science, in the same way, that when some ppl die (like old ppl) they donate their bodies to science. These individuals can "consent" to this donation. However only a parent/s may consent on behalf of the embryo, therefore I believe "consent" should be defined in each nation-state rather than a dirent rule in the UN.
"For profit" is different than "selling". I would suggest you say that embryos may not be sold, not that they may not be created for profit.

In the shared interst of all mankind we the People's republic of Windomir make the following recommendations to the United Nations, on subject of Ethical Research and Human Advancement.

1. No Human Being may be discriminated against on basis of genotype. (Genotype is defined as "The Genetic Identity of an autonomous individual, or Group.")

2. Cloning of any individual may only be practiced with the consent of "original genetic individual. i.e. Only albert einstien can may consent to creation of his own clone.

2a. No clone may be created with the any pre-destined specific societal function, i.e. the military, governement

3. There may be no selling of human embryos for the purposes of profit, however they may be donated in the interest of Research but only with "consent." (Consent may be regulated by individual nation-states, as defined by their standards.)

4. No Nation-State, Corporation, or Individual may "artificially" modify the human genetic code without the overwhelming consent (a majority) of the United Nations. For Artificial Manipulation, may only serve the Collective Interests of Mankind, and for no other purposes.


The Advancement of mankind in all ways is the concern of the UN, and its members, as well it is in everyone's interest for the both the process and methodology of such advancement to be carried out and guided by an understanding such ethical guidlines as previously mentioned.

In the shared interst of all mankind we the People's republic of Windomir make the following recommendations to the United Nations, on subject of Ethical Research and Human Advancement.

Don't submit that or it'll be deleted for branding.

4. No Nation-State, Corporation, or Individual may "artificially" modify the human genetic code without the overwhelming consent (a majority) of the United Nations. For Artificial Manipulation, may only serve the Collective Interests of Mankind, and for no other purposes.

This might be metagaming. I'd suggest a committee to make decisions like that.

For category/strength, I might suggest Human Rights: Significant/Strong, or possibly Moral Decency: Significant/Strong. Ask the mods.

"4. No Nation-State, Corporation, or Individual may "artificially" modify the human genetic code without the overwhelming consent (a majority) of the United Nations. For Artificial Manipulation, may only serve the Collective Interests of Mankind, and for no other purposes."

Ok I realize this is now the weakness of my proposal, but I believe it is essential to the Resolution...But how would I designate the creating of a commitee to decide this? I realize or more specificaly how do you write it....I'm definately open to sharing this resolution with someone, but i need help with this...

Thank You everyone, you have been brilliant

4. No Nation-State, Corporation, or Individual may "artificially" modify the human genetic code without the consent of the United Nations. For "artificial manipulation", may only serve the Collective Interests of Mankind, and for no other purposes.

Replaced with:

4. There shall be no "artificial manipulation" of the human genetic code by any Nation-state, corporation, or individual.

4a. Unless such a time arrises that it becomes nesseasary in preserving mankind, and in this circumstance, the United Nations shall set-up a commitee to determine how to best enforce this rule and protect the integrity of the genome.

The Advancement of mankind in all ways is the concern of the UN, and its members, as well it is in everyone's interest for the both the process and methodology of such advancement to be carried out and guided by an understanding such ethical guidlines.

1. No Human Being may be discriminated against on basis of genotype. (Genotype is defined as "The Genetic Identity of an autonomous individual, or group.")

2. Cloning of any individual may only be practiced with the consent of "original genetic individual. (i.e. Only albert einstien can may consent to creation of his own clone.)

2a. No clone may be created with the any pre-destined specific societal function. (i.e. the military, governement)

3. There may be no selling of human embryos for the purposes of profit, however they may be donated in the interest of Research but only with "consent." (Consent may be regulated by individual nation-states, as defined by their standards.)

4. There shall be no "artificial manipulation" of the human genetic code by any Nation-state, corporation, or individual.

4a. Unless such a time arrises that it becomes nesseasary in preserving mankind, and in this circumstance, the United Nations shall set-up a commitee to determine how to best enforce this rule and protect the integrity of the genome.

2a. No clone may be created with the any pre-destined specific societal function. (i.e. the military, governement)

The people of Cluichstan wish this clause to be stricken from the proposal, as the Cluichstani Armed Forces rely upon clones to fill their ranks (and to replenish them, as necessary).

So apparently, the scope of the Ethical Advances Act was too large...

""Ethical Advances Act" was deleted for partial duplication and for spanning more than one category.""

Duplication though, what did I duplicate? ok i'll try to pass the bill seperately...and one by one...

I think rule 1 is the most solid.. So i'll just try to pass that, and then work on Cloning reform...and prolly try to get something done the embryo market..lol...Its just my agenda....what can i say?

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=55

The Bio Rights Declaration is the only thing I can think it could have duplicated. A pity the mod who deleted it didn't have time to tell you what it was, though: you'd have to ask them to get a definite answer.

Ok..I see how it duplicating in some ways...but really it is strengthening those rights...and further protects such individuals..but whatever, thats the "democratic" process

Ok..I'm submitting a Genetic Discrimination Act


No Human Being shall be discriminated against on the basis of Genotype.

With the undstanding that Genotype is defined as: the genetic Identity of an autonomous individual, or group.

It could also have been Scientific Freedom or Stem Cell Research Funding.