[DEFEATED] Factory Farming Ban

[South Welford]

With regards to clause 1. V. it would probably help to affix “reasonable” in front of care.

Alternatively this could be written as “proportional” if it serves better.

[Imperium Anglorum]

With regards to clause 1. V. it would probably help to affix “reasonable” in front of care.

Let's not.

Alternatively this could be written as “proportional” if it serves better.

How is it proportional?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm fairly sure I told you to look this up.

GA #52, Food Welfare Act

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

Underlining mine. So your factory farming ban can only be realized if it doesn't cause famines and starvation. That needs to be written into your proposal in some way, or I'm making a challenge for contradiction.

Mass agriculture is how famines are kept at bay. You don't need to look far into RL history to find that out. Factory farming is part of mass agriculture. I know you don't ban actual factory farming with the proposal, no matter how much you would like to pretend you do, but still, even what you want to ban, can only be banned if it doesn't produce problems of feeding the population.

And before you pull out the vegan membership card that I'm sure Python owns, do remember that not all NS nations are populated by humans. Some are obligate carnivores. Or obligate omnivores.

[Zarnicovia nova]

"Also I would like to add that factory farms use(hereby overuse) of antibiotics and unsanitary conditions may/is causing extremely powerful strains of colds that we cannot manage with antibiotics with the possibility to cause a 'superbug' which cause kills millions or even billions."

[The Python]

With regards to clause 1. V. it would probably help to affix “reasonable” in front of care.

Let's not.

Alternatively this could be written as “proportional” if it serves better.

How is it proportional?

Meh, okay (because IA is IA )

OOC: I'm fairly sure I told you to look this up.

GA #52, Food Welfare Act

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

Underlining mine. So your factory farming ban can only be realized if it doesn't cause famines and starvation. That needs to be written into your proposal in some way, or I'm making a challenge for contradiction.

Um, it won't? Many countries in real life have banned it, including the entire EU, and at least 2 countries (Canada and here, New Zealand), are deliberately phasing them out. Good luck trying to point me to evidence that the EU is having famines because of this.

And before you pull out the vegan membership card that I'm sure Python owns, do remember that not all NS nations are populated by humans. Some are obligate carnivores. Or obligate omnivores.

This is NOT compulsory enforced vegetarianism, and I don't know what made you think that. This is literally just banning probably one of the most cruel practices which still exist to this day (but virtually of course, not actually). Obligate carnivores CAN still eat meat with this passed, only that the completely backwards and unethical practise of factory farming can't be used anymore.

"Also I would like to add that factory farms use(hereby overuse) of antibiotics and unsanitary conditions may/is causing extremely powerful strains of colds that we cannot manage with antibiotics with the possibility to cause a 'superbug' which cause kills millions or even billions."

Mhm, there's a reason that is explicitly banned in this draft.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: I'm fairly sure I told you to look this up.

GA #52, Food Welfare Act


Underlining mine. So your factory farming ban can only be realized if it doesn't cause famines and starvation. That needs to be written into your proposal in some way, or I'm making a challenge for contradiction.

Um, it won't? Many countries in real life have banned it, including the entire EU, and at least 2 countries (Canada and here, New Zealand), are deliberately phasing them out. Good luck trying to point me to evidence that the EU is having famines because of this.

The link you have supplied goes to a file entitled Battery_cages_laws_world_map.svg. However, your proposal does not focus solely on requiring animals to be kept in appropriate-sized cages, and any claim that it does would be extremely disingenious - especially coming from the prospective submitter nation. It also includes prohibitions on "force-feeding," "unnecessary infliction of pain and/or distress," "the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones" (other than "to cure an illness"), and "neglect towards basic hygiene." How many countries have laws in force regarding each of these?

If you are, of course, sufficiently concerned or flabbergasted, behold the following modest proposal: ( )

The General Assembly,

Noting that keeping animals in battery cages is a method often used in agricultural settings to increase efficiency and lower the cost of production,

Resolved that battery cages are almost universally considered cruel and inhumane, as using them holds no regard for the welfare of animals, and also profits off of their abuse,

Believing that any monetary cost savings that may be associated with the use of battery cages do not outweigh the costs incurred by wildlife and flora, consumer health, the economy, and the inherent rights of farm animals as sentient beings,

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "farm animal" as a sentient animal raised in an agricultural environment to produce commodities where said commodity is produced directly from said animals and
      
   2. "the use of battery cages" as keeping farm animals in solitary confinement or unhygienic, crowded spaces where they are unable to exercise their full range of motion except when strictly necessary for the health and/or welfare of said farm animals,
2. Bans the use of battery cages in member states.

Co-authored by Greater Cesnica.

[Araraukar]

Um, it won't? Many countries in real life have banned it, including the entire EU, and at least 2 countries (Canada and here, New Zealand), are deliberately phasing them out. Good luck trying to point me to evidence that the EU is having famines because of this.

OOC: And if you were targeting only wealthy western nations, there would be no problems. But you're also targeting the North Koreas and Ethiopias of NS world, where ANY reduction to production of affordable food can cause serious issues very quickly.

And also, the link you provided wasn't a link to factory farming but something related but still different. And your definition goes very much further because of the factory farming definition being a "one or more" list, instead of an "all of these" list. Are you willing to understand that you are catching many things that are NOT the evil practice you want ban?

This is NOT compulsory enforced vegetarianism, and I don't know what made you think that.

Do not strawman while blaming me for strawmanning.

What I said:

I know you don't ban actual factory farming with the proposal, no matter how much you would like to pretend you do, but still, even what you want to ban, can only be banned if it doesn't produce problems of feeding the population.

Underlined for emphasis.

And what you said:

FYI: I wouldn't oppose a bill to ban meat altogether

That suggests you do not eat meat or care about eating meat (few people would be willing to ban an integral part of their own daily diet). Am I wrong?

It has been updated to add more logistical (e.g. hygiene) arguments rather than pure ethics in the active clauses. So yes.

OOC: So you have given up on the claims of this being anti-big-agribusiness?

Also, you realize you are trying to lump several normal beekeeping practices (on stationary hives, not the madness with trucking bees around they do in USA) under the heading of evulz for lolz factory farming and thus ban beekeeping? The distress clause is still the problematic one.

"Also I would like to add that factory farms use(hereby overuse) of antibiotics and unsanitary conditions may/is causing extremely powerful strains of colds that we cannot manage with antibiotics with the possibility to cause a 'superbug' which cause kills millions or even billions."

Mhm, there's a reason that is explicitly banned in this draft.

OOC still: And if they use antibiotics on viral infections, they're also noncompliant with this resolution, but you're ignoring clause 3.c. about that one also (though I admit it's weirdly worded).

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm fairly sure I told you to look this up.

GA #52, Food Welfare Act

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

Underlining mine. So your factory farming ban can only be realized if it doesn't cause famines and starvation. That needs to be written into your proposal in some way, or I'm making a challenge for contradiction.

Mass agriculture is how famines are kept at bay. You don't need to look far into RL history to find that out. Factory farming is part of mass agriculture. I know you don't ban actual factory farming with the proposal, no matter how much you would like to pretend you do, but still, even what you want to ban, can only be banned if it doesn't produce problems of feeding the population.

And before you pull out the vegan membership card that I'm sure Python owns, do remember that not all NS nations are populated by humans. Some are obligate carnivores. Or obligate omnivores.

OOC: I don't think this is relevant. There's a whole world full of plant based options for nutrition if/when regulations on animal husbandry is are tightened. I can't speak for the rest of GenSec but I would absolutely not try to assess how long the meat v plant piece of string is - we don't do RL fact checking.

[Vikanias]

OOC: this proposal can’t stop me from making a genetically modified super-dinosaur!

[The Python]

OOC: this proposal can’t stop me from making a genetically modified super-dinosaur!

lol :>

Anyway, some pretty big changes have now been made. Anything that was previously banned but is not strictly "factory farming" and more animal rights in general has been removed (it's okay, it'll probably be tackled in a separate animal rights resolution not specific to farming). Force-feeding has also been defined to make that clearer.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Aside from preamble being inaccurate still (really would also be better to not start with a clause that makes people think you want to make food production unsustainable financially, but maybe more on that later, after sun sets - a bit before midnight - and I have a chance to cool down), looking much better now. Though "bans all forms of factory farming" indicates not just the forms defined?

Additional problem is that the proposal gives no time for transitioning from "factory farming" (it's really almost lying to keep calling it that) to whatever available alternatives. If it did, the problem with #52 likely wouldn't exist.

Imagine also, if in RL this was passed as is, it would overnight make USA mass production of meat (possibly eggs?) illegal. What would that mean? Killing all the animals and leaving them to rot? Or just leaving them to die in their cages/feedlots as you'd be breaking the law to have anything to do with them anymore? In any case there would be no more meat for the masses, other than imported or otherwise much more expensive than what people are used to? Do you think that would go peacefully or would there be demonstrations and civil restlessness? Despite RL humans not requiring mammalian/dinosaurian meat to eat?

A transition period of, say, a year, would be enough to at least handle the culling of the illegal animals humanely, and start building a system more akin to Europe's. That is, if the wellbeing of animals is your point for all this. Longer than a year, to allow industry reorganization and rebuilding of facilities, if you want permanent change in people's attitudes. 2 years would sound reasonable enough for a change as big (for some nations' meat industries) as COVID19 travel restrictions were for tourist business in RL.

OOC: So your factory farming ban can only be realized if it doesn't cause famines and starvation.

OOC: I don't think this is relevant. There's a whole world full of plant based options for nutrition if/when regulations on animal husbandry is are tightened.

OOC: And yet lo and behold we have famines in RL. I reduced my post you quoted to the relevant bit. But I hope the authors add a reasonable transition period to avoid the issue.

[The Python]

OOC: Aside from preamble being inaccurate still (really would also be better to not start with a clause that makes people think you want to make food production unsustainable financially, but maybe more on that later, after sun sets - a bit before midnight - and I have a chance to cool down), looking much better now. Though "bans all forms of factory farming" indicates not just the forms defined?

Additional problem is that the proposal gives no time for transitioning from "factory farming" (it's really almost lying to keep calling it that) to whatever available alternatives. If it did, the problem with #52 likely wouldn't exist.

Imagine also, if in RL this was passed as is, it would overnight make USA mass production of meat (possibly eggs?) illegal. What would that mean? Killing all the animals and leaving them to rot? Or just leaving them to die in their cages/feedlots as you'd be breaking the law to have anything to do with them anymore? In any case there would be no more meat for the masses, other than imported or otherwise much more expensive than what people are used to? Do you think that would go peacefully or would there be demonstrations and civil restlessness? Despite RL humans not requiring mammalian/dinosaurian meat to eat?

A transition period of, say, a year, would be enough to at least handle the culling of the illegal animals humanely, and start building a system more akin to Europe's. That is, if the wellbeing of animals is your point for all this. Longer than a year, to allow industry reorganization and rebuilding of facilities, if you want permanent change in people's attitudes. 2 years would sound reasonable enough for a change as big (for some nations' meat industries) as COVID19 travel restrictions were for tourist business in RL.

While your analysis is ... interesting:

Mandates that all member states that currently practise any form of factory farming transition factory farming out of use within no more than two years.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: "Begin at once" or similar formula should be added.

[The Python]

After... 138 posts, 44 days and 28 edits to the OP, (yes I really did just count :p) this is now on last call.

OOC: "Begin at once" or similar formula should be added.

Well, it's in the nation's interest to begin at once, but anyway that has been reworked.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I still say 1(b) and 1(c)(ii) are a qualitatively different thing from the other pieces, sir. You can't reasonably describe something people have been doing for millennia* as 'factory farming'. Better to drop it entirely and save it for another day. At that point we could support this wholeheartedly."


*

OOC: Egyptians were force-feeding geese within a century of the Great Pyramid going up, if not far longer than that (if they simply didn't bother to paint pictures of it until then). Tales of distress among these animals are greatly exaggerated, if perhaps not entirely. It is certainly not comparable to keeping animals in cage stacks, or for that matter any of the other hellish things prohibited by this proposal.

[CoraSpia]

"The Haven cannot support this proposal. Animals are objects, much like my computer, my microphone, my chair. They have no 'rights,' only 'uses.' The whole proposal is therefore based on highly flawed assumptions."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Egyptians were force-feeding geese within a century of the Great Pyramid going up, if not far longer than that (if they simply didn't bother to paint pictures of it until then). Tales of distress among these animals are greatly exaggerated, if perhaps not entirely. It is certainly not comparable to keeping animals in cage stacks, or for that matter any of the other hellish things prohibited by this proposal.

OOC: and they were even, according to one of their pictures that I've seen reproduced in a book about domestication of animals, similarly force-feeding hyaenas!

[The Python]

"The Haven cannot support this proposal. Animals are objects, much like my computer, my microphone, my chair. They have no 'rights,' only 'uses.' The whole proposal is therefore based on highly flawed assumptions."

Animals also have feelings and sentience, and thus they should be granted at least some protection, and ethical arguments do apply.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Haven cannot support this proposal. Animals are objects, much like my computer, my microphone, my chair. They have no 'rights,' only 'uses.' The whole proposal is therefore based on highly flawed assumptions."

Animals also have feelings and sentience, and thus they should be granted at least some protection, and ethical arguments do apply.

"It seems that the World Assembly is primarily motivated by utilitarian arguments, not ethical arguments. As you were informed. Absent an incentive to treat animals in this manner, states have no reason to act on ethics alone."

[The Python]

This is a threat to submit in 2 days or so if there's no good arguments against (except animals don't have rights etc)

The ban on force feeding has been (reluctantly) removed, as while it is cruel, does not exactly belong here, so that it can be banned in a new resolution.

[Dexterra]

Maybe there should be a clause requiring member states to begin researching, adopting and implementing lab-grown meat so that food abundance will not be affected

[The Python]

Maybe there should be a clause requiring member states to begin researching, adopting and implementing lab-grown meat so that food abundance will not be affected

In that case, that would not belong here and would have to go in a different resolution.

[Araraukar]

2. Bans all forms of factory farming

OOC: Asking, once more, if this clause is trying to ban other forms of factory farming too, aside from the one defined in the proposal? The one defined in the proposal is not factory farming the way the word is commonly understood, and "all forms" suggests it refers to forms not defined.

But since you DO define factory farming as a specific thing for the proposal, the above problem would go away just by taking away "all forms", as then it would only apply to what you define.

[The Python]

2. Bans all forms of factory farming

OOC: Asking, once more, if this clause is trying to ban other forms of factory farming too, aside from the one defined in the proposal? The one defined in the proposal is not factory farming the way the word is commonly understood, and "all forms" suggests it refers to forms not defined.

But since you DO define factory farming as a specific thing for the proposal, the above problem would go away just by taking away "all forms", as then it would only apply to what you define.

No? Unless you can state exactly what forms of factory farming are missing...

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Asking, once more, if this clause is trying to ban other forms of factory farming too, aside from the one defined in the proposal? The one defined in the proposal is not factory farming the way the word is commonly understood, and "all forms" suggests it refers to forms not defined.

But since you DO define factory farming as a specific thing for the proposal, the above problem would go away just by taking away "all forms", as then it would only apply to what you define.

No? Unless you can state exactly what forms of factory farming are missing...

Semantically, one could argue that growing your meat supplies in "vats" -- as this occurs in factories, rather than 'on the land' -- counts...