NationStates

Ransium wrote:I'm still fishing for further thoughts or feedback on this as well.

OOC
I'll take a copy of the current draft away to read while I have to be offline this evening.

Title: Preventing Species Extinction

Category: Environmental - All Industries - Strong

The World Assembly,

Praising this august body's long and storied commitment to the protection of endangered species,

Noting that maintaining high levels of biodiversity has a multitude of financial benefits for all member nations, both indirectly, for example through water purification, flood control, maintaining clean air and atmospheric health, and preventing soil erosion; as well as directly through tourism, providing the inspiration for medicinal compounds and industrial inventions, and being sources of food and water,

In addition, firmly believing that sapient beings have a moral obligation to avoid causing the extinction of non-sapient species,

Aware that when species are lost due to extinction, the loss is permanent and irreversible,

Therefore, in addition to any existing resolutions' regulations with regards to endangered species, hereby:

Okay.

Charges the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with:
Documenting all known species and genetically distinct sub-species which are indigenous to the territories of member nations;
Assessing threats to the continued survival of the above species and subspecies;
Creating a list of all species and subspecies threatened with extinction by non-natural causes, hereafter referred to as at-risk species, and a species by species assessment of the short-term risk of extinction;
Charges member nations to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species;

In this context "indigenous" could be read as 'endemic': Presuming that you actually mean the wider term 'native', perhaps using that word instead of "indigenous" might be better?
Also, maybe it needs to be clarified that WAESC plans -- and member nations' obligation to implement these -- applies only to the populations of those species while they are within those nations' own jurisdictions -- or for limiting the actions of people & enterprises from within those member nations who would be a part of the risk to those populations' continued existence? The current wording could be read as covering all members of those endangered species, even ones that are present in non-members' territories, and thus might be used by some governments as an excuse for intervention in other countries' affairs...

the plan shall:
Provide protections designed to prevent the probability of at-risk species becoming extinct from increasing; depending on the risk of extinction, the protections can range from the continued monitoring of the at-species' population level, at the low end of risk, to preventing all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner, at the high end of risk, or any level of protection in between;
If possible, include WAESC-supported actions that will be undertaken by the member nations such that the at-risk species can recover to the point where active protections are no longer needed, these actions might include captive breeding programs, the restoration of destroyed habitats, and/or the removal of pollution among others;

I'd insert a comma after "pollution" here.

Encourages member nations to seek conservation actions that allow the local populace and others negatively impacted by plans to become positively economically invested in species conservation, as long as these actions are consistent with conservation goals and existing WA legislation;

I'd probably replace "others" with "other people", and would definitely insert a "these" before "plans".

Charges member nations to work with impacted property owners to compensate them for the partial or complete loss of property rights;

Maybe "with property members impacted by these actions" and insert a "relevant" before "property rights"?

Charges member nations to periodically update conservation plans, with the approval of WAESC, based on new information, conditions, or novel findings of the best available science;

Okay.

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 presents a public health risk, such as through infection or parasitism;
The endangered species is outside of its native range and invasive in its present location;
The clearly needed protections for the species would present a serious public health emergency;
The clearly needed protections for the species would negatively impact another species also at risk for extinction;

Still needs the addition of wording that specifically allows further GA legislation on situations of these kinds. I'll think about possible wording, and get back to you about this.

Observes that occasional species extinction is a natural process, and does not require proactive protection where the risk of extinction is not caused or exacerbated by the actions of sapient species;

Okay.

Clarifies that member nations may enact more stringent national regulations on the impacts of endangered species, at their own discretion.

Those national regulations would need to be compatible with any limits set by earlier GA resolutions that are still in force.

Thanks, as always, for your in-depth and well thought out comments.

Bears Armed wrote:[Still needs the addition of wording that specifically allows further GA legislation on situations of these kinds. I'll think about possible wording, and get back to you about this.

I added "for the purposes of this resolution" to try to accommodate this, but I'm happy to put in any additional wording you think needed.

“Clause 7 reads as more of a preambulatory clause than an active one. You might want to either reframe it to be more like your other active clauses, or move it to the preamble.”

Good point, I've tweaked 7.

Ransium wrote:Thanks, as always, for your in-depth and well thought out comments.

Bears Armed wrote:[Still needs the addition of wording that specifically allows further GA legislation on situations of these kinds. I'll think about possible wording, and get back to you about this.

I added "for the purposes of this resolution" to try to accommodate this, but I'm happy to put in any additional wording you think needed.

OOC
No, that's okay, thank you. I've thought about the matter a bit more: My planned proposal on invasive species incorporating the usual boilerplate about earlier resolutions that are still in force should be enough to keep that legal, so there's no need for further changes here to let it work.

Assuming my repeal passes, I plan on submitting this immediately after, so if you have any further comments, this is the time.

“With regards to 6iv, what scenarios do you envisage where this could occur? Every species is part of an ecosystem that self-regulates, so I can’t see how an animal could be out of place. The only example I can think of would be an invasive species, but that is it’s own exception.”

Kenmoria wrote:“With regards to 6iv, what scenarios do you envisage where this could occur? Every species is part of an ecosystem that self-regulates, so I can’t see how an animal could be out of place. The only example I can think of would be an invasive species, but that is it’s own exception.”

When dealing with predator and prey where both species are endangered actions that benefit one may be to the detriment of others. Also, frequently when habitat is degraded or ecosystems altered in some fundamental way, predators may change their pray sources in novel ways. For example, in the jaguars eating sea turtles example I gave early in this thread, jaguars historically did not pray on sea turtles. it is only once their habitats were degraded to a certain degree and their possible food sources reduced that they started praying on the sea turtles. Essentially, self-regulation doesn't work so well in heavily impacted ecosystems where endangered animals are often found.

All known species and subspecies is an egregiously broad scope that would be overly burdensome. Not all species or organisms are equal, there may be a valid rationale for favoritism, e.g. of animals or sapients. This is not an improvement over the resolution being repealed in Barbariax's review.

Barbariax wrote:All known species and subspecies is an egregiously broad scope that would be overly burdensome. Not all species or organisms are equal, there may be a valid rationale for favoritism, e.g. of animals or sapients. This is not an improvement over the resolution being repealed in Barbariax's review.

Your position relies on a stunning combination of bad understanding of what Endangered Species Protections (the resolution being repealed) says, bad ecology, and bad economics.

ESP may only apply to animals, but is also may not. It does, after all, exclude harmful viruses and bacteria from protection, which seems to strongly imply that non-harmful viruses and bacteria are not excluded. If you want animals or sapients to clearly be the only target for conservation you don't want ESP, you want a different resolution. Only if you want a huge degree of ambiguity as to what is protected do you want ESP.

Animal species do are not capable of living in isolation. You can't really just preserve a single animal or sapient species and not preserve its habitat. And preserving habitat means not allowing the plants, other animals, etc. it depends on going extinct. You can't just pull organisms out of an ecosystem and expect everything else to keep marching on without impact. Besides, animals (and some plants) are generally the hard things to conserve, with their complex behaviors and reproduction habits; preserving lower forms of life generally just means assuring that naturally occurring conditions continue to persist. Either those natural occurring conditions are rare, in which case the species isn't that likely to be known in the first place, and, if it is, its habitat and therefore the impact of protection will be minimal, or the species is widespread and therefore it will only be driven to extinction by widespread impacts that are likely to have broad implications for plants and animals as well.

Finally, you talk about the burden of species protection, but what of the burden of species extinction? Replacing the ecosystems services that functioning ecosystems (made up of numerous non-extinct organisms) provide is often far more expensive than preserving the ecosystem in the first place. And often the burden of replacing those ecosystem services (air filtration, water purification and retention, soil retention, flood/tsunami protection and mitigation, etc.) are international burdens. Also, being able to observe and learn from living non-extinct organisms has value that can outweigh the cost of protection, for example, many medical and industrial advances have been made from plant/fungal/bacterial derived compounds. You drive those organisms extinct and you lose the ability to make those advances that could benefit all member nations in perpetuity.

So spare me, ESP is hugely ambiguous about what it does and any resolution that is at least clear about its scope superior to it, you can't just choose to protect an organism here and there and expect it to actually work, and your economic impact assessment is grossly one-sided.

Ransium wrote:

Barbariax wrote:All known species and subspecies is an egregiously broad scope that would be overly burdensome. Not all species or organisms are equal, there may be a valid rationale for favoritism, e.g. of animals or sapients. This is not an improvement over the resolution being repealed in Barbariax's review.

Your position relies on a stunning combination of bad understanding of what Endangered Species Protections (the resolution being repealed) says, bad ecology, and bad economics.

ESP may only apply to animals, but is also may not. It does, after all, exclude harmful viruses and bacteria from protection, which seems to strongly imply that non-harmful viruses and bacteria are not excluded. If you want animals or sapients to clearly be the only target for conservation you don't want ESP, you want a different resolution. Only if you want a huge degree of ambiguity as to what is protected do you want ESP.

Animal species do are not capable of living in isolation. You can't really just preserve a single animal or sapient species and not preserve its habitat. And preserving habitat means not allowing the plants, other animals, etc. it depends on going extinct. You can't just pull organisms out of an ecosystem and expect everything else to keep marching on without impact. Besides, animals (and some plants) are generally the hard things to conserve, with their complex behaviors and reproduction habits; preserving lower forms of life generally just means assuring that naturally occurring conditions continue to persist. Either those natural occurring conditions are rare, in which case the species isn't that likely to be known in the first place, and, if it is, its habitat and therefore the impact of protection will be minimal, or the species is widespread and therefore it will only be driven to extinction by widespread impacts that are likely to have broad implications for plants and animals as well.

Finally, you talk about the burden of species protection, but what of the burden of species extinction? Replacing the ecosystems services that functioning ecosystems (made up of numerous non-extinct organisms) provide is often far more expensive than preserving the ecosystem in the first place. And often the burden of replacing those ecosystem services (air filtration, water purification and retention, soil retention, flood/tsunami protection and mitigation, etc.) are international burdens. Also, being able to observe and learn from living non-extinct organisms has value that can outweigh the cost of protection, for example, many medical and industrial advances have been made from plant/fungal/bacterial derived compounds. You drive those organisms extinct and you lose the ability to make those advances that could benefit all member nations in perpetuity.

So spare me, ESP is hugely ambiguous about what it does and any resolution that is at least clear about its scope superior to it, you can't just choose to protect an organism here and there and expect it to actually work, and your economic impact assessment is grossly one-sided.

Barbariax notes that Ransium makes some rather strong assumptions and character attacks based on a simple statement. Barbariax further reiterates that a resolution targeting 100% coverage with exceptions is overly aggressive.

ESP has been the law for a decade without issue. If ESP is really that flawed as claimed, the claimant should show this via objective evidence/data. Further, if ESP is repealed, then the WAESC is similarly repealed, although the replacement assumes its continuation under revised responsibilities.

If the cost of species extinction exceeds the cost of species preservation in general, the claimant should support this with evidence/data. This is a very far-reaching assumption, and should be proven prior to the implementation of any laws dependent on it.

Also, item #7, "Clarifies that proactive protection is not required when the risk of extinction is not caused or exacerbated by the actions of sapient species;" is a huge exception that seems contrary to the overall objective of the proposal. It seems laughable to Barbariax that natural extinction is acceptable, given all of the discussion points about total (non-harmful) preservation of species & habitats.

Barbariax maintains that the proposal is far too excessive, not ready, unscientific, and inconsistent.

Barbariax wrote:Barbariax notes that Ransium makes some rather strong assumptions and character attacks based on a simple statement. Barbariax further reiterates that a resolution targeting 100% coverage with exceptions is overly aggressive.

ESP has been the law for a decade without issue. If ESP is really that flawed as claimed, the claimant should show this via objective evidence/data.

OOC:
What could possible qualify as objective evidence? These are fake laws on fake nations. There are no real facts for me to use. Do you want me to go line by line in ESP to show you the flaws I speak of? Do you want me to dig up the many resolutions about endangered species that have been proposed due to ESPs ambiguity? What do you actually want? It seems like you're asking me for an impossible things (objective evidence about imaginary impacts) and claiming the my resolution is flawed for not providing it, which doesn't make for a fun debate.

Further, if ESP is repealed, then the WAESC is similarly repealed, although the replacement assumes its continuation under revised responsibilities.

Your criticism is 100% inconsistent with WA rules and SOP of the WA:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:Committees: Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• A committee continues to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• A single-use committee that died when its resolution was repealed may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Several other resolutions still on the books also use WAESC, btw, not that it matters for your criticism to be off target.

You take unrealistic standards that are inconsistent with the rules and how the WA works and try to use them as a cudgel against others.

If the cost of species extinction exceeds the cost of species preservation in general, the claimant should support this with evidence/data. This is a very far-reaching assumption, and should be proven prior to the implementation of any laws dependent on it.

Again I'm not really sure what you're actually asking me for. Real-world scientific studies on the cost efficiency of conservation? This is not a standard thing to ask for in the General Assembly and it's unrealistic to claim a proposal isn't ready because such things aren't provided.

Also, item #7, "Clarifies that proactive protection is not required when the risk of extinction is not caused or exacerbated by the actions of sapient species;" is a huge exception that seems contrary to the overall objective of the proposal. It seems laughable to Barbariax that natural extinction is acceptable, given all of the discussion points about total (non-harmful) preservation of species & habitats.

Yes, there's a moral underpinning to the resolution. I'm not hiding it, it's right there in the preamble. From an ecosystem services perspective, there's no inconsistency, I'm using species extinction as a proxy for ecosystem health. Yes, a minuscule amount of extinction can happen in a healthy ecosystem, but the rate of extinction when sentient beings imperial ecosystem health is much higher. From the perspective of scientific advancement, yes, I acknowledge that the knowledge lost due to species lost due to natural extinction as if it were to due to non-natural, but this resolution doesn't prevent nations from protecting those species, it just doesn't compel them to.

Barbariax maintains that the proposal is far too excessive, not ready, unscientific, and inconsistent.

'Too excessive' is your opinion and can be sorted through the voting process. Not ready appears to mean you disagree with it. It's not clear to me a proposal that you personally disagree with could be, in your opinion, ready for submission. Unscientific is a wild accusation considering you haven't provided any science to demonstrate it. Since neither of has broken out peer-reviewed literature I don't really see how you can honestly use the term. I disagree with you on inconsistent and I doubt you'd be any more likely to support it if I took out item #7.

Barbariax notes that it is a simple scientific principle that the burden of proof is on the proposer of an idea to provide evidence in support of it, not on the critiquer of said idea to procure such evidence on behalf of the proposer. This principle is directly translatable to the legislative context here within the WA with regards to a regulatory resolution which encapsulates such an argument, particularly one that is directly related to scientific fields. As such, the author of a proposed resolution, in this case Ransium, carries the majority of the burden in procuring such evidence to be used in the discussion. This should be done prior to any conclusive decision making, as a matter of general best practices. Barbariax does not hold the same level of responsibility and burden, but may enter any such data at its leisure, e.g. for affirmation or refutation of the original argument.

As previously noted, a claim or assumption such as "the costs of extinction exceed the costs of preservation" is a far-reaching one, which surely must have evidence of some form in existence which can be submitted in support or refutation. It is up to the proposer of the idea, however, to make it available in whatever form they deem applicable, per the above principle.

While a given resolution may be refined and further entangled by other resolutions, it is questionable whether any such resolutions are still legitimate and may be in effect if an antecedent resolution is removed, particularly one which is foundationary. This of course is relevant to the specific example of the WAESC. However, this is a legislative and legal matter that is mostly besides the main issue which is the subject of the resolution at hand, and so Barbariax is willing to hold this concern as a minor element for a future argument, as a professional and practical courtesy.

The exception raised in point 7 is a fundamental and significant one in Barbariax's opinion, which is itself crippling of the overall resolution, but also not the only concern (per the above).

Finally (for this response), Barbariax notes amusedly that this is the second time in Barbariax's short experience with the WA that another nation of inferior intelligence and scientific achievement scores has tried to educate Barbariax and claim otherwise, not to mention economic state in this case. While Barbariax applauds Ransium on its environmental beauty and many achievements, not everyone has the same priorities or wants to have a 98% tax to pay for such programs. Barbariax prefers freedom, and cannot support using the WA to force other nations to bend to such a resolution.

Okay, you seriously want to bring my nations stats into the debate to suggest I’m intellectually inferior? I’m done. I have a PhD in real life in a ecology relevant field for whatever the peace of paper is worth.

Barbariax is confused by the reply from Ransium, as it does not seem to be much of a defense at all. The ambassador from Barbariax did not mean any insult to the ambassador or any other individual from Ransium, but was simply responding to the above and stating the facts.

However, the points from Barbariax's prior comment stand. The ambassador from Barbariax notes that the McBarbari administration asked to pass on personal greetings to the leader(s) of Ransium. "Hopefully your mangroves are growing well."

We think that this resolution will create a human-driven selection of the living creatures. We believe and have high reservations on the idea of the anthropocentric effects of animal or any living creature conservations. Nature exists not to serve the Human Interests, but just to exists. If we try to systematically control nature, a huge backlash through some externalities will inevitably happen. I urge for further discourse on this revised resolution.

Permanent Representatives of The United Socialist States of New Virtue in the World Assembly
Commissariat of Foreign Affairs.

New Virtue wrote:We think that this resolution will create a human-driven selection of the living creatures. We believe and have high reservations on the idea of the anthropocentric effects of animal or any living creature conservations. Nature exists not to serve the Human Interests, but just to exists. If we try to systematically control nature, a huge backlash through some externalities will inevitably happen. I urge for further discourse on this revised resolution.

What? How is this a response to "Preventing Species Extinction"? What exactly in the resolution are you objecting to?

OOC
Okay since you've taken my annoyance at your stupid argument as a victory I guess I will continue but I would much rather agree to disagree and move on.

Barbariax wrote:Barbariax notes that it is a simple scientific principle that the burden of proof is on the proposer of an idea to provide evidence in support of it, not on the critiquer of said idea to procure such evidence on behalf of the proposer. This principle is directly translatable to the legislative context here within the WA with regards to a regulatory resolution which encapsulates such an argument, particularly one that is directly related to scientific fields. As such, the author of a proposed resolution, in this case Ransium, carries the majority of the burden in procuring such evidence to be used in the discussion. This should be done prior to any conclusive decision making, as a matter of general best practices. Barbariax does not hold the same level of responsibility and burden, but may enter any such data at its leisure, e.g. for affirmation or refutation of the original argument.

As previously noted, a claim or assumption such as "the costs of extinction exceed the costs of preservation" is a far-reaching one, which surely must have evidence of some form in existence which can be submitted in support or refutation. It is up to the proposer of the idea, however, to make it available in whatever form they deem applicable, per the above principle.

Show me one other thread where scientific literature was required for a proposal to be felt to ready to submit? But what the hell? Sadly, I no longer have access to the peer-reviewed literature so I'll do my best. Here's a Scientific American article stating the cost of preventing all future extinctions to be $80 billion https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ex ... tinctions/. In contrast, a paper in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/387253a0 found the benefit of ecosystem services for all life on earth to be $33 trillion per year. I agree that all the at-risk species going extinct wouldn't completely stop the $33 trillion value your getting from ecosystems, but it would only have to decrease the value by 0.3% for it to be a worthwhile investment. Another study in Science found the economic benefits versus the loss of species conservation are 100 to 1 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/297/5583/950

While a given resolution may be refined and further entangled by other resolutions, it is questionable whether any such resolutions are still legitimate and may be in effect if an antecedent resolution is removed, particularly one which is foundationary. This of course is relevant to the specific example of the WAESC. However, this is a legislative and legal matter that is mostly besides the main issue which is the subject of the resolution at hand, and so Barbariax is willing to hold this concern as a minor element for a future argument, as a professional and practical courtesy.

That's not how committees work. It's just not. You, a nation with 14 posts, don't get to decide how committees work and insist you're right and my proposal is flawed when what your saying runs counter the WA rules and years of precedent. The notion that other resolutions are not enforced because one is repealed is just simply wrong. The house of cards rule specifically prevents it. It's fine that you’re a new nation learning the ropes, but just admit you wrong when you wrong. It would actually make me more willing to take your overall arguments seriously, because my preception of you currently is someone who will not admit they've made a mistake under any circumstances, and there is no use arguing with such a person.

The exception raised in point 7 is a fundamental and significant one in Barbariax's opinion, which is itself crippling of the overall resolution, but also not the only concern (per the above).

I disagree with you. Run a counter campaign on this and see how successful you are in convincing WA nations the fact I'm not forcing nations to stop natural extinction is "crippling" to the resolution at large.

Finally (for this response), Barbariax notes amusedly that this is the second time in Barbariax's short experience with the WA that another nation of inferior intelligence and scientific achievement scores has tried to educate Barbariax and claim otherwise, not to mention economic state in this case. While Barbariax applauds Ransium on its environmental beauty and many achievements, not everyone has the same priorities or wants to have a 98% tax to pay for such programs. Barbariax prefers freedom, and cannot support using the WA to force other nations to bend to such a resolution.

Obviously, this argument ticked me off. Don't use nations stats as an argument in the GA. Ransium is not my personal utopia or how I think a nation should actually be run. I just attempted to get as high of a score in the weather category as possible for several years, before I became an IE like 3 years ago. The way I answered issues had no relevance to anything other than what I thought would increase my weather score (pro-tip: weather and intelligence are negatively correlated for some reason). That has no bearing on this proposal. No serious nations in the GA thinks that using a nations stats as a proxy for what folks actually believe is a valid line of argument. If you go down this line of argument again or half apologize but imply it was actually a smart and relevant thing to say, I will simply put you on my foes list and never respond to you again.

I have to ask this. How do you reach quorum so fast?

East Meranopirus wrote:I have to ask this. How do you reach quorum so fast?

Persuasive campaign TG, probably.

This is by far the fastest I’ve gotten to quorum. I imagine the context was a bigger factor than the campaign TG, but here it is if you’re curious.

WA Delegates,

Thank you for your support in repealing "Endangered Species Protections". We must now achieve the critical second step of replacing the resolution with something more effective. I'm therefore asking you to approve my proposal entitled "Preventing Species Extinction" which I believe will accomplish just that:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1556640285

Thanks,
Ransium

Ransium wrote:This is by far the fastest I’ve gotten to quorum. I imagine the context was a bigger factor than the campaign TG, but here it is if you’re curious.

WA Delegates,

Thank you for your support in repealing "Endangered Species Protections". We must now achieve the critical second step of replacing the resolution with something more effective. I'm therefore asking you to approve my proposal entitled "Preventing Species Extinction" which I believe will accomplish just that:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1556640285

Thanks,
Ransium

That was one speedy boi

Ransium wrote:(pro-tip: weather and intelligence are negatively correlated for some reason)

OOC: *has 140th best weather in the world, has 638th smartest citizens in the world* ...ummmm.

Barbariax thanks Ranisum for the effort in replying point-by-point with supporting evidence, and sends congratulations on the successful repeal.

Barbariax also thanks Ranisum for the lesson to not take the WA very seriously. The ambassador from Barbariax expresses their hope that Ranisum may be open to future productive cultural exchanges.