[GA - not in queue] Repeal "Star Gazing Day"

---

The General Assembly,

Recognizing GA#687 "Star Gazing Day" was passed with the justification of allowing all forms of life to gaze upon celestial objects on a day that has been chose by chance and may not be satisfactory for star-watching in different sectors of the multiverses due to varying celestial object positions at dissimilar times,

Noticing that this resolution professes that artificial light pollution is "excessive" and "minimizes the visibility of celestial objects" in their preamble, yet it fails to ratify measures with the clear intent of lessening artificial light pollution itself other than futile and optional propositions of decreasing light usage to people,

Heeding the observance of Star Gazing Day and how it is voluntary which reduces the holiday's ability to raise awareness about the concern of artificial light pollution people as the holiday is reliant on organizations that may not find the celebration an efficacious method to collect revenue to spread awareness of the predicament of artificial light pollution,

Believing it would be more advantageous for either lower levels of governance or organizations in the field of astronomy to designate select days for people to enjoy the observance of celestial objects as astronomical objects can be found in unassociated locations at varying times,

Emphasizing Star Gazing Day will require that resources and attention be directed to preparing for celebrating it rather than the investigation and analysis of the night sky and light pollution,

Concluding with how it would be more brilliant for the World Assembly to use other tactics to promote astronomy or dull artificial light pollution,

Hereby repeals GA#687 "Star Gazing Day".

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

IFV.

For.

For. I don't believe the target is that meaningful.

For, as we are compelled by MGC sanctions to support.

For

For

For

For

For.

For

For, due to MGC sanctions we are required to support repeal anyway.

Against

For

For

I recognise that there are some sanctions. However, this repeal is not persuading me that the targeted resolution causes such harm so as to warrant a repeal. I will go line-by-line. The first clause criticises the target for the presence of a standardised day which might not be optimal for star-gazing. This is a fair criticism, but I question the alternative. Any day will be inevitably suboptimal for some interstellar empire. Furthermore, even if a given day is not particularly useful due to the presence of some nebula clouding visible stars, there is still merit in recognition of the principle of star-gazing. One alternative would, of course, be to have no day at all. However, given that recognising the day is optional regardless, this hardly seems an improvement.

The second clause makes the common argument that a given resolution does not do enough. This argument is fallacious, because it is possible to pass further legislation on a particular topic. The rule on duplication is not strong enough to completely prevent all overlap on area. If the author wishes to protect against illuminatory pollution more strongly, the author should do so, rather than removing what measures do exist. Similarly, the next clause appears to criticise the day for being voluntary. I wonder whether a forced mandate to look at the stars would have gone better, and I conclude that it would not have done so. That a holiday is not the optimal way to achieve a certain goal does not negate the purpose of that holiday.

All the next clauses are fairly boilerplate, including something looking suspiciously like NatSov, insofar as delegation to local levels of government should be justified as to why this is better than international standardisation. I will praise the pun regarding “brilliant”. That caused me a chuckle. However, it was not enough to make me support this repeal. In recognition of the fact that sanctions do exist, and only because of that fact, I will vote present on this matter. Nevertheless, if there must be a repeal, I would hope that it would make a slightly more compelling case.

EDIT: I’ve just realised this isn’t even in queue. I really can be silly sometimes. Ignore this.

Not in queue. Thread locked.