[Passed] Extinction Preparation Act

[The Associated Peoples]

What's wrong with the wording? When the proposal was specific, the author was cautioned to make the language more vague.

As a person who strives to see "unforeseen consequences" and deal with them before they happen, I believe the advice to make the language vague was unwise, or worse, driven by an ulterior motive, perhaps unknown even to the person giving that advice. My original argument against this resolution dealt with the lack of specificity regarding the research, and as the debate went on, many more concerns manifested themselves. It would be a travesty, not the first, if, under the guise of "WASP research," illegal biological weapons were developed--completely unexpectedly, I'm sure. I do not believe reasonable caution is "paranoia." Instead, I believe that ambition finds a way to work in vague places, often to undo the very thing well-meaning people set out to accomplish.

OOC: And if you're a militaristic RPer, send your thanks to the Associated Peoples, c/o Dr. Nigel!

I am flattered by the suggestion, regardless of the spirit it was given in, that my delegation might craft a repeal to this resolution. We are a young nation, and it would be most unwise to attempt to craft any legislation for this body, repeal or otherwise, without more experience in the process and a better understanding of the aims and motivations of those assembled. Nevertheless, if a "repeal and replace" process were to be attempted, It would be an honor to be involved, and I encourage all of my fellow delegates to participate in the democratic process.

Honored ambassador might I direct your attention to World Assembly Resolution #65 Biological Weapons Conference.This may serve to alleviate you of some concerns.

[Jedi Utopians]

As a person who strives to see "unforeseen consequences" and deal with them before they happen, I believe the advice to make the language vague was unwise, or worse, driven by an ulterior motive, perhaps unknown even to the person giving that advice. My original argument against this resolution dealt with the lack of specificity regarding the research, and as the debate went on, many more concerns manifested themselves. It would be a travesty, not the first, if, under the guise of "WASP research," illegal biological weapons were developed--completely unexpectedly, I'm sure. I do not believe reasonable caution is "paranoia." Instead, I believe that ambition finds a way to work in vague places, often to undo the very thing well-meaning people set out to accomplish.

OOC: And if you're a militaristic RPer, send your thanks to the Associated Peoples, c/o Dr. Nigel!

I am flattered by the suggestion, regardless of the spirit it was given in, that my delegation might craft a repeal to this resolution. We are a young nation, and it would be most unwise to attempt to craft any legislation for this body, repeal or otherwise, without more experience in the process and a better understanding of the aims and motivations of those assembled. Nevertheless, if a "repeal and replace" process were to be attempted, It would be an honor to be involved, and I encourage all of my fellow delegates to participate in the democratic process.

Honored ambassador might I direct your attention to World Assembly Resolution #65 Biological Weapons Conference.This may serve to alleviate you of some concerns.

It does alleviate some concerns--at least we have a list of nations who, in good faith, would not use biological agents in the ways described in that resolution, and that is heartwarming. Add ours to that list, gladly. It is a pity, however, that the last clause of that resolution undoes everything else in the resolution. In the name of "research," which, ironically, is the same ideal espoused here, biological weapons can, and will, be deliberately created--guess where!--and it will be only a matter of time before the very disasters we sought to prevent are upon us.

Resolution 65, while noble, was not very creative. I won't elaborate, but our scientists--and some of us personally--are aware of many other ways to use biological agents offensively that would not contravene that resolution, and our intelligence of other nations suggests that we are not alone in that knowledge. We know from sad experience how infinitely devious evil can be, and we must be ever-vigilant to recognize fallacies that it would exploit to our destruction. For example, Resolution 65 only addresses nations, not independent (and private) corporations--"interested parties" that this resolution gladly throws open the doors to this facility to "for a price." It may sound hypervigilant, and I sincerely hope it only remains that way, but our people do not place much faith and trust in organizations with no accountability, especially those known for corruption and an ambition for power, nor do we underestimate those who would seek to destroy our peaceful way of life.