[PASSED] Repeal Endangered Species Protection

[Ransium]

This is a repeal and replace effort. Here is a link to the replacement, Prevention of the Extinction of Species: viewtopic.php?p=35444486#p35444486

The original text of Endangered Species Protection is posted below for your convenience.

Thanks to Uan aa Boa who provided feedback on Forest's forums.

The World Assembly,

Praising the spirit of General Assembly Resolution #66 "Endangered Species Protection” and convinced that multitudes of species have been saved from extinction due to it,

Striving, however, to consistently improve and reduce the ambiguity in existing World Assembly legislation,

Strongly questioning the fact that Endangered Species Protection seemingly only extends most protections to animals, as indicated by "animals", "animal species", and "hunting" being used repeatedly in the resolution, when all biological kingdoms have unique values that would be lost by extinction,

Regretting that the resolution also states that protections need not be extended to certain types of bacteria and viruses (neither of which are animals) creating ambiguity and uncertainty in enforcement as to what forms of life are covered by Endangered Species Protections,

Finding other important terms in the resolution to be used ambiguously, such as the resolution stating that species that WA Endangered Species Committee is responsible for conserving could be "exhibiting repeated numeric decline" a phrase the could pertain to both species experiencing natural population fluctuations and those approaching endangerment; and "pollution" which could be interpreted as narrowly as to mean chemical contaminants found in habitats or as broadly as to include any noise or light impacting the habitat,

While praising the resolution's prohibitions on some actions that are deleterious to endangered species, specifically further habitat loss, habitat pollution, and hunting of endangered species; also noting the resolution does not specifically prohibit other potentially harmful actions such as non-fatal harassment of endangered organisms, the introduction of harmful invasive organisms, and the intentional or accidental disruption of important species activities,

Aware that the resolution focuses on the prevention of further harm to endangered species, while only mentioning potential actions to actively increases species population numbers in the direst circumstances,

Concerned that without a clear active recovery plan, species population levels can remain low indefinitely, leaving a no-win situation of species being at continued risk for extinction and the economically deleterious impact of endangered species protections becoming long term,

Anxious that the binary regulation choice provided for in Endangered Species Protection of species either being endangered and therefore receiving full protection or being fully unprotected lacks flexibility and may create the perverse incentive to forcibly remove species from property before they are found to be endangered so as to avoid future stringent regulations,

Confident that replacement legislation which builds upon the positive legacy of Endangered Species Protection will be put in place rapidly;

Hereby repeals GAR 66: Endangered Species Protection.

[Ransium]

Original text of GAR 66: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... s/start=71

Text copied from IA's thead here: viewtopic.php?p=731470#p731470

Endangered Species Protection
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: BURNINATI0N

Description: RECOGNIZING:
1) That in the ever-expanding industrial world, it is virtually impossible to avoid endangering the welfare of certain entire animal species.
2) That in the past, industry has callously driven hundreds of animal species to extinction.
3) The welfare of human populations on many planets is directly dependent on the health of their planets' ecosystem.
4) Without legislation, many more species will be driven to extinction.

APPALLED:
1) That certain nations and businesses knowingly destroy entire ecosystems and endanger species, even driving some to extinction.
2) In many cases, conservation efforts are non-existent, extremely badly organized, or otherwise ineffective.

HEREBY:
- Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations (Described later).

- Forms the WA Endangered Species Committee (WAESC) with the following and responsibilities:
1) The WAESC is responsible for determining reasonable numbers at which each species will be considered endangered.
2) The WAESC is responsible for accurately monitoring species’ numbers.
3) Should a species become endangered, or exhibit repeated numeric decline, the WAESC is responsible for creation of and direction of conservation efforts.
4) Should a species become endangered, the WAESC is responsible for protecting the species' remaining habitat through halting business or residential encroachment into the species' habitat, and by reducing the amount of pollution in the species' habitat. The WAESC may also severely restrict the hunting of endangered species.
5) Should a species come so near extinction that saving them in the wild is not feasible, the WAESC is responsible for capturing remaining members of the species, and attempting to repopulate the species enough to be released back into the wild.

- Should the WAESC restrict hunting of an endangered animal that a non-industrial tribe, or non-industrial aboriginal group relies upon for survival, the WAESC must ensure that the group is not destroyed or threatened by the restrictions it imposes.

- The WAESC may determine not to protect a species that is becoming endangered if that species is determined to be a threat to public health due to its parasitism or infectiousness (such as a bacteria, virus, or other parasite).

- If the WAESC restricts the usage of privately owned land, and this causes the property to lose value, then the WAESC must justly compensate for the landowner's loss, as well as any other reasonable losses incurred by its land use restriction.

- Urges nations to pass other pieces of legislation for protection of certain species within their own borders.

[Ransium]

Reserved for previous drafts.

[Bears Armed]

"This is sensibly argued and well-written, as one would expect bearing in mind its source, and we will definitely support it once a suitable replacement -- or set of replacements plural, maybeso, because some aspects of the matter (such as invasive species) might be better handled separately -- is also ready."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

(OOC: I've got rough notes somewhere for a proposal on invasive species, and will try to find these.)

[Kenmoria]

“This looks good, and has my full support. I do query why ‘hunting’ is included in the ‘questioning’ clause as animal-based language, when it could conceivably apply to killing anything for sport, but that is it.”

(OOC: Are your clauses about being based only on animals supposed to make reference of the exclusion of fungi and plants, or about sentient creatures that aren’t in the Animalia phylum?)

[Marxist Germany]

"Support"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Considering that the target uses both "endangered animal" and "endangered species", I've always read the latter to be "endangered species including but not limited to animals". So to say that the target only talks about animals is misleading.

(EDIT: The difference is same as if a proposal used both "member nations" and "all nations", in which case the latter could be read to include non-WA nations.)

[Ransium]

OOC: Considering that the target uses both "endangered animal" and "endangered species", I've always read the latter to be "endangered species including but not limited to animals". So to say that the target only talks about animals is misleading.

(EDIT: The difference is same as if a proposal used both "member nations" and "all nations", in which case the latter could be read to include non-WA nations.)

I didn't say the proposal only talks about animals. I say "decision to seemingly only extend protections to animals," I honestly don't know what ESP actually protects.

ESP's preamble:

1) That in the ever-expanding industrial world, it is virtually impossible to avoid endangering the welfare of certain entire animal species.
2) That in the past, industry has callously driven hundreds of animal species to extinction.

The main active clause that describes the protections of the ESC:

Requires nations to restrict encroachments onto habitats of endangered animals, pollution levels in and around the habitats of endangered species, and hunting of endangered animals based on WA Endangered Species Committee determinations (Described later).

If you're telling me that's not enough for one valid good faith interpretation to be it might only protect animals I don't know what to tell you. Even under your member nation/all nation example it really seems like you can only restrict endangered animals habitats and prevent endangered animals from being killed by people. If I said "seemingly only extend most protections to animals" would you be happy?

[Uan aa Boa]

The plural of phylum is phyla.

[Araraukar]

If I said "seemingly only extend most protections to animals" would you be happy?

OOC: Yup. Still no support (I prefer having the resolution in place to not having the resolution in place), but no complaints about possible legality.

Though noise and light pollution could get their own resolutions, without needing to repeal this one?

[Ransium]

If I said "seemingly only extend most protections to animals" would you be happy?

OOC: Yup. Still no support (I prefer having the resolution in place to not having the resolution in place), but no complaints about possible legality.

Though noise and light pollution could get their own resolutions, without needing to repeal this one?

Ara, you're obviously free to support or not support however you deem fit, but you rational seems crazy. Under your interpretation (which, for what it's worth, I don't agree with) of what the resolution does it is absolutely illogical in where it does and doesn't extend protections to all species rather than just animals, and I've written what I feel is an objectively better replacement. Must we be mired in vague, ambiguous, and possibly inexplicable legislation because it passed almost 10 years ago and the topic is agreeable? Also, I'm not sure if noise and light pollution need a separate resolution or are adequately covered by the term 'pollution'. One of my points is it's ambiguous what 'pollution' means in this context.

Anyway so as to avoid possible legal challenge I've made the change, as well as Uan's correction. Based on Turbeaux suggestion I changed phylum to 'biological kingdoms'

[Araraukar]

and doesn't extend protections to all species rather than just animals

OOC: That's your reading of it. And I don't support the repeal because the existing one is better than none. Even if you had the new one ready to go right after the repeal passes, there's no guarantee it'll pass, and Araraukar in any case has much stricter environmental laws than you'll ever be able to pass through the WA (and the text changing might change their ability to keep their regulations stricter), so what the current resolution says is basically ignored as being too lenient in any case.

[Ransium]

and doesn't extend protections to all species rather than just animals

OOC: That's your reading of it. And I don't support the repeal because the existing one is better than none. Even if you had the new one ready to go right after the repeal passes, there's no guarantee it'll pass, and Araraukar in any case has much stricter environmental laws than you'll ever be able to pass through the WA (and the text changing might change their ability to keep their regulations stricter), so what the current resolution says is basically ignored as being too lenient in any case.

No. Under my reading the resolution only protects animals in certain specific ways, but it is written too vaguely and ambiguously to say for sure. This ambiguity makes it difficult to impossible to pass legal resolutions patching the holes because legitimate arguments could made that ESP already sort of addresses them maybe, when equally legitimate arguments could be made that it doesn't.

If you believe, as I do, that there is a moral imperative to not drive species to extinction that spans across borders, then this situation is unacceptable even if it isn't a problem locally.

[Araraukar]

If you believe, as I do, that there is a moral imperative to not drive species to extinction that spans across borders, then this situation is unacceptable even if it isn't a problem locally.

OOC: What has morality got anything to do with biodiversity? If you want to ban extinction based on moral objections, then put the replacement proposal in Moral Decency instead of Environmental.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you believe, as I do, that there is a moral imperative to not drive species to extinction that spans across borders, then this situation is unacceptable even if it isn't a problem locally.

OOC: What has morality got anything to do with biodiversity? If you want to ban extinction based on moral objections, then put the replacement proposal in Moral Decency instead of Environmental.

The reason why we pass resolutions is founded in a conception of what is best to do morally. That's what imperative means.

[Araraukar]

The reason why we pass resolutions is founded in a conception of what is best to do morally. That's what imperative means.

OOC: You can base resolutions on morality if you want. I prefer resolutions based on logic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: You can base resolutions on morality if you want. I prefer resolutions based on logic.

This misses the point so entirely that isn't even a retort. The reason we promote human rights or protect species isn't one founded in "logic", because that is a means to reach an end. Logic is definitely used because that is how one can establish a link between what one should do and the action in question, but to say "logic" is nothing more than obfuscation of an end for its means. Simply put, we do not promote human rights or protect species because of "logic", we do it because we see a moral duty to do those things.

The scope of actually interesting debate is what ends we ought prioritise and what trade-offs we ought to make. It is not what is common on this forum in the present: god-modding and pedantry. To call those "debate" is to jettison any understanding of discourse and devolve into quibbling over warrants.

Your post above evinces a profound inability to distinguish the ends which Ransium is proposing legislation to achieve from the means or argument by which they can be justified. And that is not to include a further inability to distinguish the justification for an action from the statistical effects of that action, the latter happening to be the means by which categories are determined. I would hope that if I had such a debilitating ailment, I would refrain from giving any sort of "advice".

[Araraukar]

[missing the point completely]

OOC: The point was that I don't think it's wrong, morally, to kill a species to extinction. There's no morality involved. No right or wrong. It isn't a good (not meaning moral "good") idea, because it's a stupid action, given how complex ecosystems are. If we could know, for sure, that killing one particular species off wouldn't cause any issues for the ecosystem or ecosphere at all, then and only then would any question of wrong or right in the moral sense get in the play. So far in RL at least we simply do not know of any species that could be killed off without any negative repercussions to other species, so the question is moot and moral right and wrong need not enter the picture.

And last I checked, Ransium wasn't arguing from some perfect world RP (I mean, if they RP'd as one, why would they need the resolution in the first place?), so it must be assumed they're using RL data to base the resolution on.

If you know of a species that can be wiped out without issues, please, let the international scientific community know. I'm sure they'd be just as interested as I would be. And pretty please tell me it can be one of the bloodthirsty Nordic mosquitoes...

[Imperium Anglorum]

The reason why you oppose killing some species to death has to do with the risks of doing so. That's also inherently a moral judgement. To say we should not do something is inherently a moral judgement. Any should claim is a moral judgement.

To say that morality has nothing to do with it and it's a question of logic falls into all the problems spoken of above.

[Araraukar]

Any should claim is a moral judgement.

OOC: Also, "should" isn't a binding mandate in a proposal. Another good reason not to put it in.

You can be as pedantic about it as you want, but it's not a right/wrong moral question to me, which is what Ransium originally commented on.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You can be as pedantic about it as you want, but it's not a right/wrong moral question to me,

You're the person who argued that any morally based proposal must be filed into Moral decency. The ends of the proposal are what matter, and perhaps too the means by which they are achieved. What does not matter is the means by which they are justified, unless the proposal can fall into multiple different categories.

[Araraukar]

You're the person who argued that any morally based proposal must be filed into Moral decency.

OOC: I don't think I ever said it must be filed as MD... And it started from this:

If you believe, as I do, that there is a moral imperative to not drive species to extinction

^That is what I was replying to, all this time, not your dictionary quiz.

[Uan aa Boa]

This discussion of semantics and meta-ethics is fascinating and all, but I think Ransium might have been hoping for feedback on the draft proposal, which I think we now appreciate Ararauker isn't likely to vote in favour off when the time comes.

[Ransium]

I’ve made some minor tweaks and grammar fixes. Any further feedback? Any grammar Nazis willing to go over this with a fine-toothed comb?

[Iciaros]

OOC: Did someone say 'grammar nazi'?

I don't see any major issues, but I'll just note two things:

Praising the spirit of General Assembly Resolution #66 "Endangered Species Protection” and convinced that multitudes of species have been saved from extinction due to it,

I've only ever seen 'multitude' used in the singular form, ie 'a multitude of'. This doesn't seem to be inaccurate, though, so there's no problem here.

Finding other important terms in the resolution to be used ambiguously

I feel like the phrasing of this part could be tightened up a little? I believe it's grammatically correct, but while reading it I was thrown off towards the end. I'm not entirely sure why - 'Finding [something] to be [a certain way]' is an accepted phrase - but I think it could possibly be because there are too many words between 'finding' and 'to be' that I didn't immediately interpret this part as invoking the phrase, and instead read 'to be' as an indicator of future tense, or a standalone infinitive phrase. Something like 'finding other important terms have been used ambiguously' might be better, imo.

Aware that the resolution focuses on the prevention of further harm to endangered species, while only mentioning potential actions to actively increases species population numbers in the direst circumstances,

This is the only objective error I can find.

That's all!