NationStates

Posted: **Tue May 07, 2019 10:11 pm**

Ransium wrote:Eukaryotes can be equally single celled and microscopic I’m not sure why that’s the distinction you’d want. Regardless most known single celled organisms are very well distributed (often globally) or highly associated with higher life forms. Find me a single real world example of an known endangered prokaryotic organism that isn’t highly associated with a higher life form.

It wasn't necessarily a distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotic I was looking for, but multi-cellular and uni-cellular, so thank you for correcting me.
We seem to agree at this point, prokaryotic are depended on their environment and associated factors; where we start getting the questions is measuring.
How are we to determine it is impacted by a sapient species if we didn't know it existed in the first place or this is the first time it is being measured?
Would you classify that as being natural in section 7 despite it may being impacted by sapient species? What about deliberately created species?
It breaks down further for multi-cellular Eukaryotes like fungi since they are theorized to undergo rapid speciation like bacteria. How are we to properly define what is protected and what is not?
I think after looking into it a bit more having protections based on kingdom classification would be ideal.

EX:
Animalia, and plantae are protected.
Prokaryotes, fungi, and protista are not protected.

This still leaves corruption by biotech firms however because they mostly cultivate plantae.
One thing i might be neglecting here is actual specication has never been observed and that I am broadening the bill to include any genetic changes, i think taking this approach however will help to future proof the bill from biotech corruption.
A few good questions that might be good to ask is if its a good idea to protect mules and horses or just horses? Are we protecting every breed of horse? or does breed not matter?

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 7:25 am**

Lang Queskiya wrote:
Ransium wrote:Eukaryotes can be equally single celled and microscopic I’m not sure why that’s the distinction you’d want. Regardless most known single celled organisms are very well distributed (often globally) or highly associated with higher life forms. Find me a single real world example of an known endangered prokaryotic organism that isn’t highly associated with a higher life form.

It wasn't necessarily a distinction between eukaryotes and prokaryotic I was looking for, but multi-cellular and uni-cellular, so thank you for correcting me.
We seem to agree at this point, prokaryotic are depended on their environment and associated factors; where we start getting the questions is measuring.
How are we to determine it is impacted by a sapient species if we didn't know it existed in the first place or this is the first time it is being measured?
Would you classify that as being natural in section 7 despite it may being impacted by sapient species? What about deliberately created species?
It breaks down further for multi-cellular Eukaryotes like fungi since they are theorized to undergo rapid speciation like bacteria. How are we to properly define what is protected and what is not?
I think after looking into it a bit more having protections based on kingdom classification would be ideal.

EX:
Animalia, and plantae are protected.
Prokaryotes, fungi, and protista are not protected.

This still leaves corruption by biotech firms however because they mostly cultivate plantae.
One thing i might be neglecting here is actual specication has never been observed and that I am broadening the bill to include any genetic changes, i think taking this approach however will help to future proof the bill from biotech corruption.
A few good questions that might be good to ask is if its a good idea to protect mules and horses or just horses? Are we protecting every breed of horse? or does breed not matter?

And what do I do when someone claims they live on another world where none of those kingdoms are present? While that kind of specificity would be nice it isn't practical due to the restrictions of the game and WA. Also, just FYI proposals cannot be amended only repealed and replaced, or additional proposals passed.

I think the keys in the proposal your missing are two-fold:

Documenting all known species and genetically distinct sub-species which are native to the territories of member nations;

Only known species are protected and the proposal calls for no particular effort to documenting unknown species. Most of your concern related to rapid specication, the species is unlikely to actually be known and even if so the threat level is unlikely to be easily assessed.

Also:

Notes that WAESC may determine that one or more of the following conditions apply, in which case member nations' conservation responsibilities will be partially or wholly lifted for the purposes of this resolution ...
The endangered species is outside of its native range and invasive in its present location;

What is the "native range" for a man-made species? I would argue there is none and therefore the species will not require protection.

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 7:33 am**

Good going with this one Ransium, sorry I was late to the party.

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 9:01 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Republica JIM wrote:This proposal wiil make Millions and millios of new pour people!!

"That is vanishingly unlikely, ambassador."

It is very likely to happen to the industrialized countries. The industries will be the main affected of this proposal and also the people who are employed in those industries!!

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 9:09 am**

Thank you for clarifying all of my concerns.
I was under the impression that you had a bill ready for proposal if there is an appeal of the current one allowing amendments to be made, my fault.

Thanks again and it was a pleasure :^)

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 9:21 am**

Republica JIM wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"That is vanishingly unlikely, ambassador."

It is very likely to happen to the industrialized countries. The industries will be the main affected of this proposal and also the people who are employed in those industries!!

(OOC: On the other hand, species extinction will make millions more people extinct who work in any fields that rely on biodiversity. Also, there are extraordinarily few examples of careers that require deliberate species killing to function.)

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 9:40 am**

Republica JIM wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"That is vanishingly unlikely, ambassador."

It is very likely to happen to the industrialized countries. The industries will be the main affected of this proposal and also the people who are employed in those industries!!

Unless you're planning to corner the market in the algae scraping and processing business, the continued extinction of species is going to hurt your economy more than this proposal.

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 12:23 pm**

Republica JIM wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"The door is over there," Ogenbond says, motioning to the exit.

no, proposals have to be debated. This proposal goes against our people and our economy!!!!

"If the World Assembly is so bad, and ought not to legislate on such policies as it has in hundreds of previous resolutions, then perhaps you should leave?" Ogenbond again motions to the door to the voting chamber. "Membership is not mandatory."

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 6:42 pm**

Ransium wrote:What is the "native range" for a man-made species? I would argue there is none and therefore the species will not require protection.

"The native range for a man-made species is the range the species was made for, naturally. We farm a genetically modified version of the mangrove oyster for nacre, and of course the flesh is also used. They are a separate species in that they cannot successfully reproduce with any naturally existing species of mangrove oyster, but their potential natural range is the same as that of natural mangrove oyster species, because that is the environment they were made to live in. I say "potential", because we farm them responsibly and part of how they were modified was to prevent them from overtaking all possible habitats from the natural species."

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 8:08 pm**

Republica JIM wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"That is vanishingly unlikely, ambassador."

It is very likely to happen to the industrialized countries. The industries will be the main affected of this proposal and also the people who are employed in those industries!!

"Ambassador, the Confederate Dominion was already largely in compliance with this law before it passed, yet managed a very powerful economy. The Confederate Dominion is eminently industrialized. Square that with your nonsense."

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 9:59 pm**

That was a scary ride overall, and I still can’t believe it all actually worked. Thanks for everyone who has supported.

Posted: **Wed May 08, 2019 11:36 pm**

(OOC:

Preventing Species Extinction was passed 13,529 votes to 1,521.

Congratulations Ransium. Hopefully, there won’t be too many repeal attempts over the ‘industrial damage’.)

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2019 10:15 am**

OOC: Pretty good numbers for a "scary ride!"

Posted: **Thu May 09, 2019 10:17 am**

This proposal did more than the current politicians within the UN. 10/10 World Assembly.

NationStates

[PASSED] Preventing Species Extinction