NationStates Jolt Archive

We've added some new UN categories to incorporate new ideas into the stale set of existing categories. If you don't like the current set or you think we need some new ones, come up with a COMPLETE category and propose it in UN. Get some feedback, finetune it, hone it to perfection. If Hack or I (or one of the other mods) haven't commented in a week or two, you could poke us here and ask us to look over the thread. We do have other duties, you know. Try to solve these yourselves.

I have some ideas for an "Advancement of Science"-type category, I thought I'd share them, and hopefully they can be improved and submitted for consideration by the powers that be.

So:
Category - "Advancement of Science" or "Science and Technology"?
Descriptor - "A resolution to fund a scientfic or technological international research project."

I would have this category raise taxes (if that's possible), while improving the economy (to reflect both the impact on employment etc, and the potential for gain from new stuff developed) and maybe improving intelligence or education (on the grounds that public research is often linked to universities etc, so science students tend to benefit at universities hosting cutting-edge research and the best brains).

Sub-categories would indicate the field of research, which would determine an additional effect specific to the category, and I have a few ideas:

- Space - (including both space missions and terrestrial observation) a boost to happiness or education?

- Biomedical - would improve health of citizens or quality of health services

- Alternative Energy Sources - would improve the environment - unfortunately it can't specifically impact fossil fuel industries, since they aren't represented in the game, and it might be inappropriate to have it damage uranium mining or automobile manufacturing, since it could be a proposal to research better nuclear fission or cars, rather than making such things obsolete altogether.

- Agricultural - could improve environment, health, the beef-based agriculture industry?

- Defence - would boost military strength in some way, plus the arms manufacturing industry

- Computing - would boost the IT industry

It might be necessary to balance the benefits with more costs, so perhaps biomedical and agricultural could be made to reflect the public's unease with GM tech etc, or result in some decline in the piety of populations (because the scientists are "playing God" - which would be a boon for some and a disaster for others) and defence projects could create unhappiness, because pacifists would object. Computing makes me think of the freedoms associated with the web etc, so maybe civil rights could decline because of the potential for surrveillance, while political freedoms rise because of the potential for freedom of expression? Then again, these things might be inappropriate to the particular area of computing, and such trends surveillance and censorship are not inevitably associated with telecommunications advances anyway. I'm not sure what bad things could result from space or energy research.

So - opinions? More ideas?

'Meteorological Cooperation' might actually have fitted better into a category like this than it did into 'Free Trade' (not that I'm opposed to Free Trade, in the least, though...)

I like the general idea but I have a few concerns:

"A resolution to fund a scientfic or technological international research project."
This is too limiting. I'd prefer something along the lines of "A resolution to promote scientific or technological research." That would allow for things giving incentives for the private sector to develop things, like passed resolutions such as UN Recycling Commission and UN Patent Law.

I think there also ought to be a subcategory called "general" or "other", to further all fields (like UN Patent Law did), something like Environmental:All businesses.

We're almost certain to limit you to four choices, so pick the four that give the best representation of all possible proposal types.

Also, each of the four can have entirely different effects. Medical can improve health, computing could perhaps improve corporate efficiency, that sort of thing. Bear in mind that almost everything the game does has offseting negatives for any positive effect, such as taxes, pollution, etc. Be sure to incorporate those too.

I think it should be "Science and Technology". The four categories I would pick would be biomedical, agricultural, defence and IT. Perhaps the defence one could be used within the confines of International Security, though, in which case an environmental (alternative fuels) one would be good.

I'd think in general, this category would increase taxes, government size and (if there is such a hidden variable) science spending; possibly also Education (although we already have a category for that).

I think it should be "Science and Technology". The four categories I would pick would be biomedical, agricultural, defence and IT. Perhaps the defence one could be used within the confines of International Security, though, in which case an environmental (alternative fuels) one would be good.

I'd think in general, this category would increase taxes, government size and (if there is such a hidden variable) science spending; possibly also Education (although we already have a category for that).

This is an excellent start, add to this transportation (which can be related to vehicles, transportation codes, and general infrastructure). I'd also treat the agriculutural resources as a more general "natural resources" and include water supply.

The *other* way to go would be to add an energy sub-category.

I'd leave defense spending in the existing IS category.


So I'm saying:

Science and Technology
- Biomedical (promote / don't promote)
- Information Technology (promote / don't promote)
- Natural Resources (promote / don't promote)
- Transportation (promte / don't promote)

Give the category the chance to downplay some technologies ... cloning for example could be restricted via a S&T Biomedical proposal.

This is too limiting. I'd prefer something along the lines of "A resolution to promote scientific or technological research." That would allow for things giving incentives for the private sector to develop things, like passed resolutions such as UN Recycling Commission and UN Patent Law.

Hmm. There's two types of things here:

-specifically encouraging the private sector to do research (e.g. offering tax breaks to automobile manufacturers who research green cars)
-economic policies designed to create an atmosphere conducive to research (e.g. patent laws)

I'm inclined to say that this category should cover the former but not the latter.

I think there also ought to be a subcategory called "general" or "other", to further all fields (like UN Patent Law did), something like Environmental:All businesses.

Sounds good.

As to picking 4: I think Biomedical definitely needs to be there. A general/other category is a sensible inclusion, give it generic effects and "space" can probably be thrown in there, since such programmes don't tend to have specific immediate impacts in the same way that, say, developing a new drug or a GM crop does.

Mik, while promote/discourage is a good idea, I don't think the mods would let us have so much customisation. As to "natural resources" I have a feeling that would end up being used for energy resources as well, which wouldn't mesh with the effects of crop research etc. When I suggested that, the thing at the front of my mind was GM crops, but expanding it to other agricultural techniques, and to water provision, sounds good, so how about a title that specifies providing nutrition - all I can come up with is "Agriculture And Water", maybe someone else has a better idea? If we call it "nutrition" it may be misinterpreted as being to do with dietary research.

IT I feel is the weakest of the options I suggested, and would quite easily fit into a "general/other" subcategory anyway.

I'd prefer to go with "energy" (not "alternative energy") over "transportation". It could take in all the fusion and renewables stuff, as well as refining existing technologies such as fission, and also cover green cars. The other transport stuff Mik mentions could go into "general/other" (infrastructure certainly - I'm not quite sure how transport codes would fit into a science research category at all).

So, I'd go for:
- Biomedical
- (green/clean/environmentally-friendly?) energy
- Agriculture and Water
- General/Other

The question would then be, do defence research projects go under "sci+tech - general/other", or under the IS category? Description-wise, the science option fits best, but the stats effects of IS are more appropriate.

I whole heartedly support a science category. It certainly would make certain resolutions more clear.

Science and Technology
- Biomedical (promote / don't promote)
- Information Technology (promote / don't promote)
- Natural Resources (promote / don't promote)
- Transportation (promte / don't promote).
That's eight. If this is called Advancement of Science, they're all going to Promote. If you want a Luddite category, you'll need to define that separately.

Another thought: your suggestions should counter something existing in the game, if possible. "Advancement of Industry" was largely designed as an antithesis to "Environmental", though it went beyond that in several ways. If you want pro/con balance, come up with TWO good categories. I'm not promising we'll put either of them in, but we will consider it.

[edit] "General/Other" won't play. Come up with something that can have a predictable coded effect. Adding a satellite defense system will provide entirely different costs and benefits to covering deserts with solar cells. There's no way to lump them under a single category.

Frisbeerteria: I apologize for the off-topic post, but I was curious, are we able to establish resolutions that would give the UN more power, such as the power to remove nations that support unethical practices via new resolutions to the UN? I was just thinking that the UN could probably have a bit more to work with, to make it more interesting.

[edit] "General/Other" won't play. Come up with something that can have a predictable coded effect. Adding a satellite defense system will provide entirely different costs and benefits to covering deserts with solar cells. There's no way to lump them under a single category.

Isn't this what "environmental: all businesses" does?

Frisbeerteria: I apologize for the off-topic post, but I was curious, are we able to establish resolutions that would give the UN more power, such as the power to remove nations that support unethical practices via new resolutions to the UN? I was just thinking that the UN could probably have a bit more to work with, to make it more interesting.
Nope, first off only the mods can kick nations from the UN, secondly it sounds like you want to be able to write resolutions that specifically target nations which can't be done.

Frisbeerteria: I apologize for the off-topic post, but I was curious, are we able to establish resolutions that would give the UN more power, such as the power to remove nations that support unethical practices via new resolutions to the UN? I was just thinking that the UN could probably have a bit more to work with, to make it more interesting.
The UN has the power to affect your collective national laws. Isn't that enough?


(and no, Flibbleites is correct. No specific nation-targeting powers will ever be allowed.)

Isn't this what "environmental: all businesses" does?
Environmental
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind.
I don't see the cases as parallel. Show me a rationale for "Advancement of Science" that works equally for the examples I list (and perhaps some other random bits), and maybe I'll change my mind.

Ultimately, we've got to sell the results to the admins. While I'd welcome new categories, it's your show. Make your case(s). If you can convince me and Teh Moist Gloomiest HaxX0r, we might be able to interest the others.

Transportation is actually a pretty important category, as it isn't limited to *vehicular* (land, air, sea) improvements, but also networking, remote sensing, structural design, and *gasp* urban planning. If anything, you might make a case that transportation is a sub-set of urban planning <-- a fact which might work nicely in NationStates.

Let's say that we are concerned about air pollution. Though we have a category for dealing with environmental - auto industry, an alternative (that would slide under the radar of some neo-kiddies) would be to promote high speed rail. More people on an international rail service, less congestion.

Kesslek's resolution calling for an international emergency number could also fit into a transportation / urban planning category under the guise of standardization -- the promotion here is really *building* a common infrastructure to be used by different social / cultural groups. :)


As for Luddities ... there is a very real example of using the UN to slow down research in human cloning. Education and research constantly threaten religion, and theoracies are a valid RPed government type. I would really encourage building new categories to scale back some of the new categories we might create.

Another thought: your suggestions should counter something existing in the game, if possible. "Advancement of Industry" was largely designed as an antithesis to "Environmental", though it went beyond that in several ways. If you want pro/con balance, come up with TWO good categories. I'm not promising we'll put either of them in, but we will consider it.
Well, it could be argued it's already there: the Education and Creativity category. Arts v. science is a common theme (it appears in one or two game issues), so the two do complement each other somewhat.

Alternatively, these suggestions seem to involve improving the economy. Thye could be seen as serving to balance out categories like Environmental (for the energy one) and Social Justice (for the biomedical one). If not, then maybe that angle could be spun out?

You rang?

Transportation is actually a pretty important category, as it isn't limited to *vehicular* (land, air, sea) improvements, but also networking, remote sensing, structural design, and *gasp* urban planning. If anything, you might make a case that transportation is a sub-set of urban planning <-- a fact which might work nicely in NationStates.

Let's say that we are concerned about air pollution. Though we have a category for dealing with environmental - auto industry, an alternative (that would slide under the radar of some neo-kiddies) would be to promote high speed rail. More people on an international rail service, less congestion.

Kesslek's resolution calling for an international emergency number could also fit into a transportation / urban planning category under the guise of standardization -- the promotion here is really *building* a common infrastructure to be used by different social / cultural groups. :)

What you're talking about here doesn't sound much like promoting scientific or technological research, more like implementation and promotion of existing technologies. Anyway, research within transportation, apart from on energy sources, seems to me to be less appropriate to what the average player might want to research than the other fields we've been discussing.


As for Luddities ... there is a very real example of using the UN to slow down research in human cloning. Education and research constantly threaten religion, and theoracies are a valid RPed government type. I would really encourage building new categories to scale back some of the new categories we might create.

A "restriction of research" category would be a good counter. Should its subcategories be strength-related (as in, discourage versus ban), breadth-related (banning/discouraging very specific stuff versus sweeping bans/discouragements on entire fields of research) or field-related (in which case, do we have the same fields as for the pro-science category? This might not be appropriate, because while I can see plenty of anti-biomed, anti-military and anti-agriculture stuff, other fields of research might not see so much opposition.)?

I don't see the cases as parallel. Show me a rationale for "Advancement of Science" that works equally for the examples I list (and perhaps some other random bits), and maybe I'll change my mind.

Ok, it would end up being a bit more broad than the "environment:all businesses" one. So point ceded now that I look at it when I'm not sleepy.

So I'll revise the list I made of my preferred categories:
- Biomedical
- (green/clean/environmentally-friendly?) energy
- Agriculture (and Water? Now that I think about it, the effects may not mesh well if we want to have it boost the agriculture industry. Mik, could you give an example of the kind of research effort you were thinking of for water supplies?)
- Space

I chose space because I think it is more useful to what I'd guess most players want to do than IT is. Defence projects can go under the existing IS category.

A new idea inspired by something Ecopoeia said to me - instead of "space" we could have a sub-category that is all-purpose for "blue skies" type research - that is, sciencey stuff done for the sake of knowledge rather than done with immediate practical gain in mind. This could take in space missions along the lines of "let's go to mars", telescopic observation of the stars, SETI-type stuff (I have a two-year-old draft gathering dust that was never submitted because of the lack of a suitable category!), as well as particle accelerators and the like.

Proposals in this subcategory could create jobs, improve education and intelligence, but cost quite a lot.

Also, Randomea pointed out that agricultural research could easily produce something detrimental to the environment whilst being good for business and feeding people, so either that subcategory would have to focus on economic and health effects and nothing environmental, or we'd need to restrict it to "green" agriculture.

Water supply reliability ... I could talk for days on the subject as many of you know, but *easy* subject area is supporting resolutions to develop new techologies to clean water (for drinking water supplies or waste water discharges ... the basic principals are the same, the end use is different -- largely due to human social perceptions, which is silly, because unless you live relatively near a mountain, you are drinking waste water already). :)

Getting a bit more specific would be to suggest players might want to talk about filtration / desalination technologies ... which even most water engineers mistake as being the same thing. They aren't, but the point is there is plenty of national and international level research dedicated towards enhancing water resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

The economics section of the Desalination article is the important thing for us:

"The energy needed for desalination, particularly R.O. has declined but not as fast as energy has increased in price recently. A modern, large, efficient plant is within 20% of the cost of developing a new, local source of fresh water in some places."

The above quote along is why this subject is something that can potentially be interesting.

Flood control and irrigation projects can take the form of simple collection of information to actual improvements in the mechanical devices incorporated into our rivers, canals, and reservoirs.

Vector control is another huge public health issue that a group like the UN should be worried about. Just because a lake might not be within my territorial bounds doesn't mean that water based dieases can't reach my nation.

etc. etc.

In the RL UN most of these activities are going to fall under the UN FAO, UN WMO, UN WHO, IPCC, and UNESCO organizations / committees. The UN General Assembly does pass general "Year of Water" or "Water is Important" or "Mountains are Neato" resolutions, but the trend in NationStates has been to micromanage player nations ... and the types of RL examples we might want to think about replicating will be in the UN specialized committees.

The best water keywords: climate change, agriculture, drinking water, or waste water.


Moving water takes power, but it also generates power.
Cleaning water takes power.
Growing food takes water.
Growing people takes food and water.

The main point is to come up with a new category that really focuses on improving the physical (not civil or political) quality of life of people, but not on enhancing the environment. The basic idea is that by improving the efficiency at which we can consume / use natural resources (including renewable ones) isn't exactly a "Environmental -- All Businesses" resolution. I think by calling a category: Science: Agricultural / Water Resources, makes it clear that we are really talking about a way to feed more people. :) A minor game stat that these resolutions would shift (tradeoff) would be environment down / public health up.

Another thought: your suggestions should counter something existing in the game, if possible. "Advancement of Industry" was largely designed as an antithesis to "Environmental", though it went beyond that in several ways. If you want pro/con balance, come up with TWO good categories. I'm not promising we'll put either of them in, but we will consider it.

Perhaps a "Restriction of Research" category could be a counterweight to the "Advancement of Science" category being proposed here. This is just a thought, not an attempt to actually get something like this instated, though I do think it would be interesting to have those two categories.

Water, water, everywhere ...
Mik, your RL job as a water engineer is showing. I could make a similar case for IT, but I won't. The thing is, (and I'm sure you see this too), water is just too narrow for a choice. Hmmmm ...

Adapated from National Science Foundation Fields of Science Codes (http://www.sdsc.edu/MetaScience/fos.html) Agriculture and GeoSciences Medical and BioSciences Engineering and Physical Sciences Computer and Information SciencesThose might do. Those might do nicely.

Mik, your RL job as a water engineer is showing. I could make a similar case for IT, but I won't. The thing is, (and I'm sure you see this too), water is just too narrow for a choice. Hmmmm ...

Mik, I agree. While most people will be able to say "I think we ought to research fusion" or "We should send people to Mars" or "Let's cure TB", far fewer could produce satisfactory proposals on water engineering. It might well turn out that the only player submitting decent proposals for water supply would be you!

Irrigation research could go into a pure agriculture category, power stuff into a green energy category. Disease things, depending on the angle, could fit into biomedical, while anything implementing existing technologies to get water to more people could go to another category, since it's not really scientific or technological research.

Agriculture and GeoSciences
Medical and BioSciences
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Computer and Information Sciences

I'm not sure about these. I would have thought that players would respond to GeoSciences with stuff about earthquake and volcano research, the effects of which don't really match up with agriculturul advances. "BioSciences" is extremely broad, and would engulf most of the stuff we might otherwise expect to go into agriculture. Engineering and Physical Sciences research projects could be very different - the effects of building a particle accelerator for fundamental physics research are going to be entirely different to, say, researching ways to improve the structural integrity of skyscrapers.

Mik, your RL job as a water engineer is showing. I could make a similar case for IT, but I won't. The thing is, (and I'm sure you see this too), water is just too narrow for a choice. Hmmmm ...

Adapated from National Science Foundation Fields of Science Codes (http://www.sdsc.edu/MetaScience/fos.html) Agriculture and GeoSciences Medical and BioSciences Engineering and Physical Sciences Computer and Information SciencesThose might do. Those might do nicely.

:) I'm sure it is.

But, I think water and ag are tied together and didn't advocate that they be separated. The Ag / GeoSciences are fine, actually all four categories are good. There is always going to be some overlap, but the infrastructure I was interested in can fit into the engineering category, water into the geosciences.

Mik, I agree. While most people will be able to say "I think we ought to research fusion" or "We should send people to Mars" or "Let's cure TB", far fewer could produce satisfactory proposals on water engineering. It might well turn out that the only player submitting decent proposals for water supply would be you!


Desalination and irrigation proposals have appeared in the queue before ... they tend to have a "Save the Forests" approach, but I've actually been surprised that they aren't any less frequent that HIV/AIDS related issues.

I don't expect technical proposals. I'm not gonna shy away if one appears, but when I read a resolution (not a repeal) ... I honestly hold it to a 10th grade standard. If it looks like something a sophomore in high school might have tried hard to create and shows some signs of editing and thought, I'll overlook finer details. (On repeals, I raise that bar to what I'd expect from a 3rd year political science student at a university to put together -- it is more of a legal document, and even then, I weigh the repeal against the resolution, with the end result being, I'm very likely to vote no on most repeals.)

I don't think we need an entire category ... but I do think that watever category we make should be designed with water / climate in mind, as if I were to die, you'll still see them rolling in the queue with some regularity.

Desalination and irrigation proposals have appeared in the queue before ... they tend to have a "Save the Forests" approach, but I've actually been surprised that they aren't any less frequent that HIV/AIDS related issues.

But what do they propose doing? If it's simply implementation, they don't belong in this category anyway. This is for researching new science and technology, not so much using it for immediate practical benefit.

Anyway, irrigation could fit in a purely agriculturalcategory.

But what do they propose doing? If it's simply implementation, they don't belong in this category anyway. This is for researching new science and technology, not so much using it for immediate practical benefit.

Anyway, irrigation could fit in a purely agriculturalcategory.

I already answered that in that *way* too long post. :)

Short Re-cap: Ag/water research can be many things, but a subject that I frequently see non-engineers talking about: desalination. Irrigation efficiency is also a hot topic.

I already answered that in that *way* too long post. :)

Short Re-cap: Ag/water research can be many things, but a subject that I frequently see non-engineers talking about: desalination. Irrigation efficiency is also a hot topic.

Sorry for the break - was on a short holiday!

Anyway, what I meant was, if a proposal is saying that we should all set up desalination plants, that doesn't really belong in this proposed category. It would only belong if it said that we should start researching new and better methods of desalination.

And even if we didn't specify water in a subcategory, you could fit irrigation research into agriculture.

Sorry for the break - was on a short holiday!

Anyway, what I meant was, if a proposal is saying that we should all set up desalination plants, that doesn't really belong in this proposed category. It would only belong if it said that we should start researching new and better methods of desalination.

And even if we didn't specify water in a subcategory, you could fit irrigation research into agriculture.

I've taken many breaks myself! :)

Right, I think we are in agreement. I still think the groups Fris came up with are *really* good.

I still think the groups Fris came up with are *really* good.

I still have the concerns I stated earlier:

I'm not sure about these. I would have thought that players would respond to GeoSciences with stuff about earthquake and volcano research, the effects of which don't really match up with agriculturul advances. "BioSciences" is extremely broad, and would engulf most of the stuff we might otherwise expect to go into agriculture. Engineering and Physical Sciences research projects could be very different - the effects of building a particle accelerator for fundamental physics research are going to be entirely different to, say, researching ways to improve the structural integrity of skyscrapers.

I still have the concerns I stated earlier:

Speaking as a registered civil engineer (i.e. people who build skyscrappers, dams, and bridges) there is a complete connection between engineering fields and physics. Some schools consider engineering an application of physics or an "applied" science, and yet engineering educational programs are still dominated by research.

I think it should be pointed out that Fris didn't just try to come up with some arbitrary categories, but found a research classification already in use. By adopting a system already in use, we're more likely to recapture whatever logic they had when dividing things up the way they did (i.e. let's not reinvent the wheel). :)

OK, I know the point of this game is to reinvent or improve the wheel. But a circle is always gonna work better than a triangle for moving things along.

Hmm....

Green Research - research into agriculture, services, industry and alternative energy technologies at the expensive of profits.

BioMedical and Genetic Research - research into medical treatments, diseases, origins of life, genetic coding and genetic manipulation at the expense of religion and morals.

I.T., Robotics, Mechanical Engineering, Investigative and Interstellar Technology - Research into unexplored territories such as the ocean and space, computers, A.I., vehicles and communication techonology at the expense of privacy.

Civil and Social Engineering research - <anyone?>

that take anyone's fancy?

I like Fris's suggestion more.

Speaking as a registered civil engineer (i.e. people who build skyscrappers, dams, and bridges) there is a complete connection between engineering fields and physics. Some schools consider engineering an application of physics or an "applied" science, and yet engineering educational programs are still dominated by research.

I think it should be pointed out that Fris didn't just try to come up with some arbitrary categories, but found a research classification already in use. By adopting a system already in use, we're more likely to recapture whatever logic they had when dividing things up the way they did (i.e. let's not reinvent the wheel). :)

OK, I know the point of this game is to reinvent or improve the wheel. But a circle is always gonna work better than a triangle for moving things along.

I do recognise that there's a strong link. But for the purposes of the game mechanics, I think that we have to separate them. It's not appropriate for a proposal to have the same stats effects whether it has us building a particle accelerator or researching better skyscrapers. The latter has immediate commercial application, while the former is aimed at expanding our knowledge, with any practical results coming much later in all likelihood.

@Randomea: interesting ideas, though I see a few issues. Green tech is not always going to be bad for business, and space exploration doesn't quite fit with the more commercially useful fields it's been grouped with. Having biomedical stuff impact on religion (I think the game measures devoutness) is good, though I'd dispute the morality thing (what with it being very subjective). Finally there are a few things I can think of that could fall under both genetic manipulation and the green tech (e.g. engineering algae for photosynthetic hydrogen production and other biofuels stuff, adding nitrogen-fixation into crops to eliminate the need for fertilisers, or engineering micro-organisms to clean up pollution).

EDIT: by the way, I do like the idea of a separate civil engineering category.

Of course there'll be crossover, but then think of it realistically: how many un proposals dealing with photosynthesising algae will be passed at all let alone as a genetic manip proposal? Afterall, a green fuel research resolution already exists...(I think)

Maybe we could have a "Research" category and an "Infrastructure" category?

Maybe we could have a "Research" category and an "Infrastructure" category?
Simple and effective. I agree.

Maybe we could have a "Research" category and an "Infrastructure" category?

Perhaps if the infrastructure category included subcategories to distinguish between building and researching infrastructure/civil engineering that would resolve some problems.

Of course there'll be crossover, but then think of it realistically: how many un proposals dealing with photosynthesising algae will be passed at all let alone as a genetic manip proposal? Afterall, a green fuel research resolution already exists...(I think)

Ok, I got a little carried away with engineering photsynthetic algae to produce hydrogen fuels. But the other things I mentioned aren't all that outlandish. I can see a UN proposal calling for international cooperation in developing greener crops which don't require fertilisers or pesticides.

Green tech is, I feel, just a bit too broad.

I think the following would work well:

Advancement of Science
- Biomedical
- Cleaner energy
- Agriculture (including irrigation)
- Blue skies (including space exploration, particle accelerators and the like)

Infrastructure
- Civil engineering research
- Infrastructure development
- Infrastructure sharing (e.g. increased international cooperation to share water and power supplies across borders? Building international transport links?)

I think one of the two categories should include something on IT.

Can you give me an idea of what kind of IT proposal you're thinking of? Telecoms can go into the infrastructure category - in fact the "sharing" subcategory would work well for anything relating to developing the internet.

I was thinking more along the lines of researching better computer technology (Research) or using technology in specific capacities (Infrastructure).

Hmm. Maybe "cleaner energy" could be kicked out of science in favour of "Computing and telecoms"? I can't see space in the infrastructure one, unless we re-style the subcategorising - at present, they're not field-specific.

But then you have to decide on the effects of the subdivisions. If they are too broad then any stat change might work for one resolution and not another.
...Which might mean a third set of categories 'Advancement of Science for Profit' as opposed to 'Advancement of Science for the Benefit of Life' for example.
This could turn into a large tree...

This could turn into a large tree...

Then we could hug it! Yay!

Then we could hug it! Yay!

http://phil.philwells.net/East/treehugger.jpg