Posted: Mon May 03, 2021 8:43 am
I am against. I find this proposal arbitrarily narrow in scope, too inflexible and prescriptive, and adding little helpful protection that aren’t already covered by existing proposals.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Uan aa Boa wrote:Like my fellow Forestian Daarwyrth I'll be opposing this one. We already have GA#465 Preventing Species Extinction which charges member nations with implementing conservation plans for threatened species. It's difficult to see how this proposal meaningfully extends beyond that.
The great virtue of GA#465 is its flexibility. It calls for plans to be drawn up for endangered species that take account of their particular circumstances, without asserting that certain local circumstances must be repeated across the world. It doesn't overstate the risk to a particular type of habitat if it is, in fact, widespread but it does already mandate action to protect a unique habitat that only exists in 1 or 2 neighbouring nations.
You wouldn't address the threat to native Madagascan forest by defining that habitat in a way that removes the real world reference and then writing an international law asserting that it is in fact present in many nations, but that's precisely what this proposal does.
Wallenburg wrote:"Seeing as this bans the construction, maintenance, modification, and renovation of roads and railways, emergency service infrastructure, farmhouses, agricultural infrastructure, and existing city centers wherever tall, temperate grasslands exist, Wallenburg is firmly against this proposal. We will not have anything to do with countless people being left to rot in decaying buildings and endangering themselves around unserviced, obsolete infrastructure."
Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.
Big Boyz wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.
This affects all new land development. Current land development (such as a paved road which is currently going through a tallgrass prairie) cannot be "prevented" since it already exists. The maintenance done to repair this road is permitted, so long as it doesn't affect the surrounding prairie. New roads cannot be paved over tallgrass prairie, but existing roads can be repaired and maintained, since the tiny strip of land they occupy is not tallgrass prairie.
Big Boyz wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I'm not sure how permanent land exploitation qualifies as "allowing the landscape to recover to its naturally occurring form within a period of 5 years." How does a road going through a grassland allow the paved area to "recover to its naturally occurring form" in any sense? No, it seems rather obvious that this affects all land development.
This affects all new land development. Current land development (such as a paved road which is currently going through a tallgrass prairie) cannot be "prevented" since it already exists. The maintenance done to repair this road is permitted, so long as it doesn't affect the surrounding prairie. New roads cannot be paved over tallgrass prairie, but existing roads can be repaired and maintained, since the tiny strip of land they occupy is not tallgrass prairie.
Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "I fear too many voters that have voted 'for' on this proposal, are somewhat blinded by the fact that it feels good to vote in favour of a proposal that appears to promote environmentalism at a first glance. While it certainly can feel good to do so, the flaws of this resolution proposal outweigh the intent with which it has been written, or what it intends to do. I point out the fact that a majority of my fellow Forestians, who are known for spreading a messsage of environmentalism, have voted 'against' this proposal, with several individual Forestians evenly openly speaking out against this proposal.
This is not a good proposal. This is a proposal that will create more problems than it solves, if it even solves any, and it has no consideration for many of the unique and diverse ecosystems across the member nations of the World Assembly."
Big Boyz wrote:The claims made against this proposal have been debunked, either in this thread, or in the Forest RMB. I fear that many so-called "environmentalists" are wantonly overlooking the benefits that this proposal would ensure for the sake of pure tribalism.
Big Boyz wrote:This proposal is targeted at an ecosystem that provides vital ecological and economic functions and, while there are estimated to be over 2400 nations with this ecosystem, the range of these tallgrass prairies have been significantly diminished by the advent of agriculture and land development, as well as carelessness in management. This proposal attempts to right the wrongs of our past.
Daarwyrth wrote:Big Boyz wrote:The claims made against this proposal have been debunked, either in this thread, or in the Forest RMB. I fear that many so-called "environmentalists" are wantonly overlooking the benefits that this proposal would ensure for the sake of pure tribalism.
"No, Ambassador, they have not been debunked, you simply stopped replying in the correspondence. You have failed to provide convincing counter arguments that were capable to disprove the arguments brought forth by my fellow Forestians."
Big Boyz wrote:This proposal is targeted at an ecosystem that provides vital ecological and economic functions and, while there are estimated to be over 2400 nations with this ecosystem, the range of these tallgrass prairies have been significantly diminished by the advent of agriculture and land development, as well as carelessness in management. This proposal attempts to right the wrongs of our past.
"Excuse me, 2400 nations? Where did you get this number from? What source did you use to pinpoint the exact number of 2400? Have you asked every single nation in the World Assembly whether they have a biome with prairie tall grasses in their native ecosystems? Sources, Ambassador, sources, because now it seems as if you have pulled the number 2400 out of a whale's mouth."
Big Boyz wrote:We know that these biomes occur in approximately 1% of RL nations. We know that there are approximately 240,000 nations in nationstates, so one would expect this ecosystem to occur in approximately 2400 nations, although some room has to be left for role play disparities. This is an estimation that has been confirmed numerous times on this thread.
Daarwyrth wrote:Also, Ambassador, what wrongs, of whose past? The species of prairie tall grasses that your proposal intends to protect are nowhere to be found in Daarwyrth. What wrongs have we committed against your prairie tall grasses? The answer is 'none'. You have based this entire proposal on the presumptuous assumption that prairie tall grasses appear in every single nation across the multiverse. I bet that there are many nations who have never even heard of your prairie tall grasses. How then can you presume to know that these particular biospheres are of economic and environmental importance to all nations, if many will not even have them occurring naturally in their biosphere?
Instead of listening to valuable and constructive criticism, you have consistently remained stubborn in your approach to this resolution proposal. A pity, for a resolution on the protection of all unique ecosystems would have received the support of our delegation without any fuss."
Daarwyrth wrote:Big Boyz wrote:We know that these biomes occur in approximately 1% of RL nations. We know that there are approximately 240,000 nations in nationstates, so one would expect this ecosystem to occur in approximately 2400 nations, although some room has to be left for role play disparities. This is an estimation that has been confirmed numerous times on this thread.
OOC: Real life does not apply to NationStates. NS is its own entity, with its own multiverse, that contains its own rules. Just because something is true in the real world, does not make it true for NationStates. Also, you presume to tell 2400 nations what their nation's biosphere. A big no-no, because that infringes upon player autonomy.
Big Boyz wrote:The nation of Daarwyrth, being devoid of tallgrass prairies, is not the subject of this resolution. We have failed on a global, international scale to protect this once vibrant ecosystem. I have not made any claim that this prairie exists across every nation in the multiverse, I made general references that there are many nations (ie, more than just 1 or 2) that have or have historically had tallgrass prairies. I have absolutely not claimed that they exist in every nation. This is a point that I have already addressed specifically to you. You are overlooking my past responses and simply reiterating the same old tired arguments.
Big Boyz wrote:This criticism has been neither valuable nor constructive. These claims are misleading and insincere, putting forth poor arguments that intentionally overlook certain aspects of the proposal.
A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.
Daarwyrth wrote:Big Boyz wrote:The nation of Daarwyrth, being devoid of tallgrass prairies, is not the subject of this resolution. We have failed on a global, international scale to protect this once vibrant ecosystem. I have not made any claim that this prairie exists across every nation in the multiverse, I made general references that there are many nations (ie, more than just 1 or 2) that have or have historically had tallgrass prairies. I have absolutely not claimed that they exist in every nation. This is a point that I have already addressed specifically to you. You are overlooking my past responses and simply reiterating the same old tired arguments.
Vyn Nysen: "Think again, Ambassador. As Daarwyrth is a member of the World Assembly and will be subject to its laws and regulations, it is very much one of the 21.410 subjects that are a member of this international organisation. You argue on the basis of your own presumptuous assumptions without providing proof for the fact that prairie tall grasses are prevalent. I have not seen a single decisive and conclusive source that proves you know what you're talking about when it comes to the make-up and nature of the members of the World Assembly, or the nations of the multiverse."
Big Boyz wrote:This criticism has been neither valuable nor constructive. These claims are misleading and insincere, putting forth poor arguments that intentionally overlook certain aspects of the proposal.
A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.
Vyn Nysen: "How convenient of you, Ambassador, that you call any comment that you don't like misleading and insincere. You have displayed a horrendous attitude during the drafting of this proposal, where the only opinion you listened to was your own. You do not look beyond your own flawed opinions and are unwilling to consider any other viewpoint that does not align with your own. And calling the constructive criticism of multiple delegations 'misleading' or 'insincere' does not make it so. I have seen the commentary and feedback, and it's not the critics who are the problem, Ambassador. It is your attitude and inability to look beyond your own thoughts and considerations.
Your own proposal is laden with bureaucracy that is even destructive to some nations. Have you considered nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere in their ecosystem? For example, a nation where this species of tall grasses grows everywhere? You have effectively condemned them to a slow death with this proposal, Ambassador, as they will not only be unable to develop any of their land, but they will also be unable to sustain population growth or their economy. Your resolution condemns those nations to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation.
All because you were unable to accept the commentary and feedback from others, Ambassador."
Big Boyz wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "Think again, Ambassador. As Daarwyrth is a member of the World Assembly and will be subject to its laws and regulations, it is very much one of the 21.410 subjects that are a member of this international organisation. You argue on the basis of your own presumptuous assumptions without providing proof for the fact that prairie tall grasses are prevalent. I have not seen a single decisive and conclusive source that proves you know what you're talking about when it comes to the make-up and nature of the members of the World Assembly, or the nations of the multiverse."
Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.
Vyn Nysen: "How convenient of you, Ambassador, that you call any comment that you don't like misleading and insincere. You have displayed a horrendous attitude during the drafting of this proposal, where the only opinion you listened to was your own. You do not look beyond your own flawed opinions and are unwilling to consider any other viewpoint that does not align with your own. And calling the constructive criticism of multiple delegations 'misleading' or 'insincere' does not make it so. I have seen the commentary and feedback, and it's not the critics who are the problem, Ambassador. It is your attitude and inability to look beyond your own thoughts and considerations.
I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.Your own proposal is laden with bureaucracy that is even destructive to some nations. Have you considered nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere in their ecosystem? For example, a nation where this species of tall grasses grows everywhere? You have effectively condemned them to a slow death with this proposal, Ambassador, as they will not only be unable to develop any of their land, but they will also be unable to sustain population growth or their economy. Your resolution condemns those nations to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation.
There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.All because you were unable to accept the commentary and feedback from others, Ambassador."
I have accepted feedback that was in good faith, Ambassador. It is you who is failing to hear my responses and instead is insisting on repeating the same arguments over and over again.
Big Boyz wrote:Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.
Big Boyz wrote:I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.
Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.
For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?
This resolution proposal will receive a firm 'against' from our delegation once it comes to a vote. We will not allow a potential invasive species to threaten our nation's ecosystem because some unknown ambassador got it in their head that the entire fabric of existence is exactly like their nation, and only like their nation."
Daarwyrth wrote:"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.
Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."
Big Boyz wrote:There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so I do not see how this will "condemn" nations, as you have so claimed. If nations currently have an abundance of tallgrass prairie, to the extent that this proposal would limit infrastructural expansion, then one is left to wonder why they haven't expanded into these prairies already? Surely they are desirable enough for conversion. If a nation has maintained its prairies in their abundant state for this long, then I doubt that they would take issue with continuing to do so.
Big Boyz wrote:I have accepted feedback that was in good faith, Ambassador. It is you who is failing to hear my responses and instead is insisting on repeating the same arguments over and over again.
First Nightmare wrote:A nation can circumvent the prohibition on land development by leaving the WA, developing the land, and then re-entering the WA. The repercussions of leaving the WA might have a sizable impact, but if land development is really necessary then the benefits outweigh the losses.
Daarwyrth wrote:Big Boyz wrote:Daarwyrth may be a member of the WA, but none of the directives in the proposal affect nations that do not have tallgrass prairies. To say that the international community of NationStates does not at least follow the general trends of the real world is foolish.
OOC: Oh right, because we have blue-skinned aliens, talking rabbits and magical entities in the real world. I suggest you take a good, close look at the rules regarding real-life references here in the GA. Because they are there for a reason, and they even apply to you.
Big Boyz wrote:I have consistently listened to and applied the feedback that was given to me in good faith during the drafting process. Go back to the early pages of this forum. I implemented dozens of changes based on the feedback of dozens of nations. The criticisms that came later, which simply presented fallacious arguments attacking the proposal and provided no feedback on improvement are the ones that I would call 'misleading' and 'insincere', and you, Daarwyrth, have been one of the worst offenders. You are so biased against this proposal that you will attack it from any angle that you could possibly envision, without ever having suggested improvements.
Vyn Nysen: "The theatre is that way, Ambassador, this isn't the place for such dramatics. We do not attack this proposal, we oppose it. And I have the admit the longer I interact with you, Ambassador, the stronger my opposition to this proposal becomes. If you fail to recognise the difference between 'opposition' and 'attack' I suggest you pick up a dictionary, Ambassador, and peruse it attentively. Also, let me remind you that our delegation actually did respond to your proposal with constructive criticism, which you chose to dismiss
Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, please answer this for me: what if some of your prairie tallgrass species would turn out to be damaging to the natural Daarwyrthian ecosystem? In the sense that they could be considered an invasive species? Your resolution would effectively prevent us from destroying the invasive tallgrass species.
For some inexplicable reason you assume that the tallgrass species that you seek to protect naturally occur across all the member states of the World Assembly. Ambassador, they don't. The species of prairie tallgrass that you apparently wish to protect don't occur in Daarwyrth naturally, yet you seem to be completely oblivious to that fact, and even willingly so. Also, you fail to notice the very flaw in your thinking, namely, if you assume that these tallgrass species are so prevalent across the multiverse, then they aren't really endangered or danger of becoming such, no?
This resolution proposal will receive a firm 'against' from our delegation once it comes to a vote. We will not allow a potential invasive species to threaten our nation's ecosystem because some unknown ambassador got it in their head that the entire fabric of existence is exactly like their nation, and only like their nation."
Daarwyrth wrote:"Then leave it to the individual nations themselves that do have these biomes to deal with their maintenance and preservation. It is useless to enforce this onto nations that do not have this biome. This is a highly local issue, not one for the entirety of the World Assembly.
Our delegation remains opposed to this legislation, as your arguments fail to convince us."
Big Boyz wrote:I respectfully disagree. This is an international issue. Neither pollinators nor migratory species know human boundaries, so the effect of one nation failing to protect prairies can devastate the ecology and agricultural sector of another.
Nothing is being forced upon nations that do not have this biome, save for some simple research studies conducted primarily by the WASP. Restoration efforts are encouraged, but voluntary, so a nation that does not currently have this ecosystem will not be affected by the mandates of clause 3.
If you remain unconvinced, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, really, your imagination can't be that limited. A nation that can no longer develop new hospitals, new housing, new infrastructure or economic centres, places of work because they can't develop land with prairie tall grasses will be led to its doom with time. New houses won't be able to be built, when the population grows. Joblessness numbers will grow because no new places of work arise. Food shortages will occur with a lack of nutritional resources being develop on land that can't be touched."
Vyn Nysen: "Because by perhaps repeating them they will finally pass through your skull into your mind, Ambassador. You are not an arbitrator that gets to decide what feedback has been given in good faith and what not. Most of the feedback and criticism that others have offered to you as a result of your resolution proposal was, objectively, in good faith, sincere and valid. Yet for some reason, stubbornness or pride, you are unwilling to look at the feedback and criticism provided objectively, Ambassador. You take everything that disagrees with you as an attack and as something malicious.
A veritable shame."
Vyn Nysen: "Or, and here is just a thought, we can have a resolution proposal that actually works efficiently and properly, instead of having to resort to onerous circumventions. The solution is right in front of us, draft a better proposal, but authoring delegation refuses to see what stands right in front of them."
Big Boyz wrote:You can pretend that your actions have been nothing but noble, and mine nothing but ignorant, but that doesn't make it true. You are living in a dream world, Ambassador, in which you envision yourself as the hero, and anyone who points to the folly of your worldview as a villain.
Big Boyz wrote:The situation you are describing is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same claim about a nation that exclusively contains endangered ecosystems, or exclusively contains other protected ecosystems, such as wetlands.
Daarwyrth wrote:Vyn Nysen: "An excellent speech that you should be giving yourself in the mirror, Ambassador."
Vyn Nysen: "Your inability to listen or consider the feedback of others has given our delegation ample material for the repeal draft of this resolution. The criticism that's offered is not only meant to try to help improve a resolution, but if ignored or dismissed, they will become the repeal hooks meant to pull a resolution back down.
I have said my pieces, Ambassador, and it felt as if I was talking to a brick wall.
I wish you a good day, Ambassador."