NationStates

You have got to be kidding me. This is not only overstepping the WA's bounds, it's totally and utterly pointless.

Darenjo wrote:You have got to be kidding me. This is not only overstepping the WA's bounds, it's totally and utterly pointless.

Welcome to the World Assembly...

While we at the N.C.R science association, agree and commend the WA for discussing this, cloning is against the law in the free nation of the NewCalifornia-Republic, so we will vote against this bill, unless we can take part but not have our people cloned, is that possible?

To: The Representative of the New California Republic
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

NewCalifornia-Republic wrote:While we at the N.C.R science association, agree and commend the WA for discussing this, cloning is against the law in the free nation of the NewCalifornia-Republic, so we will vote against this bill, unless we can take part but not have our people cloned, is that possible?

Many other methods can be implemented other than cloning, namely, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Many nations feel the same way about cloning and we certainly have no intention of advocating illegal activity within any sovereign nation. While some of the function of the Extinction Preparation Act is providing certain safeguards, the Extinction Preparation Research Facility also focuses on gathering research that can be shared between all nations.

A pretty brave resolution in Ms. Harper's opinion, but she will abstain because the coordination of measures against extinction doesn't have to be sited in the Arctic. I do understand about the preservation qualities, but couldn't the WA help existing institutes have a chance of developing a breakthrough that allows us to ensure continuity of the ecosystem?

NewCalifornia-Republic wrote:While we at the N.C.R science association, agree and commend the WA for discussing this, cloning is against the law in the free nation of the NewCalifornia-Republic, so we will vote against this bill, unless we can take part but not have our people cloned, is that possible?

In fact, Premier Randolphs said something in an unrelated entry that, I feel, is well put and relates to your question:

The Associated Peoples wrote:

Teshuva wrote:It seeks to study ways to bring back an environment that has ceased.To maintain a viable source of genetic materials and seek ways to use them in an efficient manner.

Also, this proposal doesn't target animal-life exclusively. Solutions found through the research done in this facility can help in a number of other situations, such as varieties of plant-life being wiped out through deforestation.

Thank you for putting our minds to rest on that matter, but another member of the science association has brought something rather disturbing to my attention. If said extinction does happen to a peoples, by another peoples, wouldn't this put this centre at risk, is there some form of contingency plan or safe guard? Furthermore surely with global warming and other factors wouldn't it be better for it to be in a desert than in the Arctic?

To: Ms. Harper
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:A pretty brave resolution in Ms. Harper's opinion, but she will abstain because the coordination of measures against extinction doesn't have to be sited in the Arctic. I do understand about the preservation qualities, but couldn't the WA help existing institutes have a chance of developing a breakthrough that allows us to ensure continuity of the ecosystem?

Ideally, it will be stationed in an arctic region well above sea level, though, it's only mandated to be located in a neutral World Assembly territory. Arguably, research shared with interested parties could be used by individual nations to contribute to their own methods of prevention. While artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, cloning and methods for rebuilding ecosystems might not be particularly useful for interested parties, the study of keystone species and efficient horticultural replenishment could contribute to a Member Nation's own research into adequate prevention methods.

To: The Representative of the New California Republic
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

NewCalifornia-Republic wrote:Thank you for putting our minds to rest on that matter, but another member of the science association has brought something rather disturbing to my attention. If said extinction does happen to a peoples, by another peoples, wouldn't this put this centre at risk, is there some form of contingency plan or safe guard? Furthermore surely with global warming and other factors wouldn't it be better for it to be in a desert than in the Arctic?

Are you suggesting potential attacks on the facility? Unfortunately, the World Assembly may not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? We would've liked to have multiple facilities in place but for reasons that have already been addressed,

The Coyote Coalition wrote:We had considered multiple facilities, although, there were concerns about scale. Robert and I decided that complaints might crop up concerning even more extensive use of World Assembly territory and, considering the complaints (flippant or otherwise) of those opposed involving the exact nature of the land we intended the World Assembly to implement, it seems it may not have been an incorrect decision. I do agree with you, though, but compromises often have to be made.

As for the preference for an arctic region, in the result of electrical failure, the genetic materials can still be kept below required temperatures for the sake of maintenance.

Ok, how did we get from extinction facility to military tactics? This is supposed to be about preserving, not destroying. I for one, like this resolution. As for those opposed, too bad, because more people are in favor than not!

Is this a joke?

It creates one facility, in the arctic region (WTF?), to research methods to save species. There are no limits to how the facility may be used. The fourth clause is meaningless.

Sintas wrote:Ok, how did we get from extinction facility to military tactics? This is supposed to be about preserving, not destroying. I for one, like this resolution. As for those opposed, too bad, because more people are in favor than not!

Yes but its all good preserving the gene pool, but this would be a high target for terrorists, so there must be a plan in place to defend the research facilities, so I for one, am willing to commit 20% of the N.C.R combat forces to the defence of the stations, if there is to be some sort of joint security operation to protect them, I am now changing my vote from 'against' to 'for'.

Sits back swirling his brandy thoughtfully, most traces of amusement gone from all of the botox injected features of his just slightly worn face. He picks up a match book and stands to address the WA, pulling out a cigarette as he does so. Lighting it slowly he inhales deep and long, then exhales as he speaks

"Esteemed WA members, I would urge you all to think upon a matter that has not yet been raised, that of the devastation caused by another NS border or near your own. As we all know volcanic eruptions, mudslides, earthquakes, etc. do not tend to follow our own man made borders all of the time, and neither do the disasters we create. Oil spills alone can spread across the bordering shorelines of many nations causing massive devastation and economic hardship. Nuclear meltdowns (though rare), and leakage as well. And we have not even talked about the military,
Tries to hide his smirk here.
or sentient beings.

Those disasters which effect your neighbors can also effect you and all the nation states in the area, and not everyone has seed banks or the money to afford them. With this resolution there would be no need to worry for the small countries with struggling economies who suddenly becomes hit with fallout from a neighboring nations wars or nuclear testing. Now they have the ability to recover their plant life that was lost them, the flora and the fauna gone would be renewed.

I say there is nothing that can be wrong with safeguards against one nations protection, and the protection of other nations that could have potential spillover from the devastated first nation. It provides a rich and stimulating learning, and educational opportunity for our scientists as they study and do their research. This proposal is sound, ethical, and does not mistreat life nor the sovereignty of other nations.

Sintas wrote:Ok, how did we get from extinction facility to military tactics? This is supposed to be about preserving, not destroying. I for one, like this resolution. As for those opposed, too bad, because more people are in favor than not!

Thank you ambassador for your show of support.At this time the vote could still go any way and it is a testament to the power of the individual vote that is keeping this afloat.

Just Guy wrote:Is this a joke?

It creates one facility, in the arctic region (WTF?), to research methods to save species. There are no limits to how the facility may be used. The fourth clause is meaningless.

Ambassador there is nothing that says only one facility can be built.Also I did not say the arctic region I said an arctic region and I believe that the reasoning behind this has already been adequately addressed.Also this is an ideal placement nothing in the proposal states that it is required just ideal.For reasons that have already been mentioned nothing was written in the proposal that set a minimum or maximum limit to the amount of structures to be established.If this were to pass the choice of building more would be in the hands of an existing organization that is more than capable of determining when and if another such facility should be erected.I would like to know why you believe the fourth clause is unnecessary if the honored ambassador would not mind elaborating.

NewCalifornia-Republic wrote:Yes but its all good preserving the gene pool, but this would be a high target for terrorists, so there must be a plan in place to defend the research facilities, so I for one, am willing to commit 20% of the N.C.R combat forces to the defence of the stations, if there is to be some sort of joint security operation to protect them, I am now changing my vote from 'against' to 'for'.

I am glad to see that Mr.Eustice Levi was able to alleviate you of your initial qualms about this proposal.Thank you for your support.

Buried Plows wrote:I say there is nothing that can be wrong with safeguards against one nations protection, and the protection of other nations that could have potential spillover from the devastated first nation. It provides a rich and stimulating learning, and educational opportunity for our scientists as they study and do their research. This proposal is sound, ethical, and does not mistreat life nor the sovereignty of other nations.

Thank you Mr.Yale I could not have said this better myself.

Darenjo wrote:You have got to be kidding me. This is not only overstepping the WA's bounds, it's totally and utterly pointless.

The "WA's bounds" are either getting smaller by the day, to the point of nonexistence, or there is a serious misunderstanding of what the "WA's bounds" are in the first place...

I. AUTHORIZES the creation of the Extinction Preparation Research Facility (EPRF).
a.) The facility will be located in a neutral World Assembly controlled territory. Ideally, in an arctic region well above sea level, with little to no seismic activity, to minimize the danger of damage due to electrical failure, flooding or structural damage.
b.) The facility is to be staffed, constructed and maintained by the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP).
c.) Member nations may use this facility freely, while non-member nations may use it for a nominal fee, which will provide additional funding for upkeep.

Clearly only refers to one facility.

Also, as far as we are aware, 'arctic' (as a region) only means the region around Earth's north-pole, and does not include regions in which the climate is arctic.

IV. REQUIRES acceptable preservation methods to be observed.

This is so vague it can't be enforced. What's an acceptable preservation method? Acceptable to whom?

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Darenjo wrote:You have got to be kidding me. This is not only overstepping the WA's bounds, it's totally and utterly pointless.

The "WA's bounds" are either getting smaller by the day, to the point of nonexistence, or there is a serious misunderstanding of what the "WA's bounds" are in the first place...

I seriously think the WA regulars (which I don't know if I'd count) need to have an invite-only conference or something on this. At least to make sure stupid proposals like this don't hit the floor.

please Just Guy vote no...please Just Guy vote no...

Already have, but way too late to stomp it. Damn Alsted.

Darenjo wrote:I seriously think the WA regulars (which I don't know if I'd count) need to have an invite-only conference or something on this. At least to make sure stupid proposals like this don't hit the floor.

Well this regular doesn't think it's a stupid idea. In fact, this regular already passed a resolution that does for seeds what this one does for other biological matter.

Besides, the WA regulars would never be able to agree on a single treatise for the proper type of cheese to use when making grilled cheese, let alone on what topics the WA should consider.

Just Guy wrote:

I. AUTHORIZES the creation of the Extinction Preparation Research Facility (EPRF).
a.) The facility will be located in a neutral World Assembly controlled territory. Ideally, in an arctic region well above sea level, with little to no seismic activity, to minimize the danger of damage due to electrical failure, flooding or structural damage.
b.) The facility is to be staffed, constructed and maintained by the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP).
c.) Member nations may use this facility freely, while non-member nations may use it for a nominal fee, which will provide additional funding for upkeep.

Clearly only refers to one facility.


Also, as far as we are aware, 'arctic' (as a region) only means the region around Earth's north-pole, and does not include regions in which the climate is arctic.

IV. REQUIRES acceptable preservation methods to be observed.

This is so vague it can't be enforced. What's an acceptable preservation method? Acceptable to whom?

(ooc)I have seen your opinion of an earth and humans only before and understand why you feel that way but that is not the way it is.It's as simple as that.The non-human non-earthling nations were established before I started messing around here so I have no choice and no problem accepting them.
arc·tic   
[ahrk-tik or, especially for 7, ahr-tik]
–adjective
1.( often initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or located at or near the North Pole: the arctic region.
2.coming from the North Pole or the arctic region: an arctic wind.
3.characteristic of the extremely cold, snowy, windy weather north of the Arctic Circle; frigid; bleak: an arctic winter.
4.suitable for use in the arctic: arctic boots.
5.extremely cold in manner, atmosphere, etc.: a look of arctic disdain.
–noun
6.( often initial capital letter ) the region lying north of the Arctic Circle or of the northernmost limit of tree growth; the polar area north of the timber line.
7.arctics, warm, waterproof overshoes.
This is the earth definition of arctic and I would like to direct your attention to #5 which is the context I am using it in.

I'm sure if I looked I could find multiple examples of institutions and organizations that have a main base if you will and multiple other buildings in other areas that share the same administration and functions because growth required expansion one example would be the various collages and their branches.

I'm not a scientist so I couldn't say what acceptable preservation methods would be sure I can read real world examples and use those but NS is extremely varied in it's technological advancements and lack there of.I believe I've even seen things written by a cave man.His version of acceptable and mine would differ greatly.Am I to suggest methods that are sub par to those that may exist elsewhere or accept the fact that many nations are much more advanced than I am myself and may have better solutions that they can bring to the table.It would be quite elitist of me to ignore those that role-play in a manner different than mine.
Speaking of elitist

Darenjo wrote:
I seriously think the WA regulars (which I don't know if I'd count) need to have an invite-only conference or something on this. At least to make sure stupid proposals like this don't hit the floor.

please Just Guy vote no...please Just Guy vote no...

Seriously?I'm new I'll give you that but it seems that quite a few others that are not new do not think this is stupid.Looking at the popular vote as opposed to the delegate votes you are in the minority in your opinion but I accept the fact that the delegates with the larger power bases often have the loudest voting voice and am certainly fine with that.As far as being a regular goes I'm going to be get used to it.

Just Guy wrote:

I. AUTHORIZES the creation of the Extinction Preparation Research Facility (EPRF).
a.) The facility will be located in a neutral World Assembly controlled territory. Ideally, in an arctic region well above sea level, with little to no seismic activity, to minimize the danger of damage due to electrical failure, flooding or structural damage.
b.) The facility is to be staffed, constructed and maintained by the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP).
c.) Member nations may use this facility freely, while non-member nations may use it for a nominal fee, which will provide additional funding for upkeep.

Clearly only refers to one facility.

Also, as far as we are aware, 'arctic' (as a region) only means the region around Earth's north-pole, and does not include regions in which the climate is arctic.

IV. REQUIRES acceptable preservation methods to be observed.

This is so vague it can't be enforced. What's an acceptable preservation method? Acceptable to whom?

If you could've brought yourself to read anything that's been said throughout this thread beyond the original post, you'd see that both points have been acknowledged and explained.

The Coyote Coalition wrote:We had considered multiple facilities, although, there were concerns about scale. Robert and I decided that complaints might crop up concerning even more extensive use of World Assembly territory and, considering the complaints (flippant or otherwise) of those opposed involving the exact nature of the land we intended the World Assembly to implement, it seems it may not have been an incorrect decision. I do agree with you, though, but compromises often have to be made.

Concerning the seedbank, we simply didn't want to step on anyone's toes when it came to past resolutions. We were also concerned with the dreaded legality issues that often get brought up.

I've also noticed concerns about how vague the issues seems to be and I thought I'd address them here. For example, initially, the proposal looked more like this at points:

IV. REQUIRES acceptable storage methods to be observed.
a.) Seeds are to be stored in four-ply, sealed envelopes and placed into plastic tote containers on metal shelving racks. The storage rooms are to be kept at −18°C (−0°F).
b.) Saplings are to be kept in nurseries.
c.) Genetic animal materials are to be stored through the process of cryopreservation, including the use of cryoprotectants at a temperature of 77 K or −196°C.

It was brought to our attention that more advanced methods might exist throughout the World Assembly and we ought to be somewhat vague on those accounts. (OOC: Considering many nations in NationStates have methods far beyond those of what's we're capable of in the real world.)

As much as I hate responding to "arguments" that consist of little more than "Is this a joke!? WTF!?" I feel that those who would vote responsibly should understand why these issues exist.

You haven't responded to any of my arguments...

Just Guy wrote:You haven't responded to any of my arguments...

Maybe it's because they are weak and I choose to ignore them anything I had to say on the matters have already as far as I'm concerned been addressed to an adequate degree. Basically we disagree on what to accept as reality.Your camps position is there is only one planet and race of sentient species.My camp recognizes the validity of non-human sentients and other occupied celestial bodies.I can't argue with a delusional being that chooses to not see the members of this assembly that are right before their eyes.As far as the one versus more than one facility argument goes once again weak and answered more than once you are just unwilling to accept it and that's fine I will not waste my time trying to sway a person who's view is as limited as yours.Good day to you ambassador enjoy your narrow minded position.

Just Guy wrote:You haven't responded to any of my arguments...

I did forget to further elaborate on one point, acceptable methods of preservation would read as methods that acceptably preserve the genetic materials, ensuring their utility and safe storage. Should a method not be proven to adequately maintain the genetic materials, it clearly isn't an acceptable method of preservation. Of course, that could all be simplified by saying, "requires acceptable preservation methods to be observed."