NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted the following proposal. The final formulation owes much to a draft by Vastiva posted by Saysomething, as well as the discussion in the thread "Rights for all Intelligence". Please give this proposal you serous consideration. This measure will extend UN protection of personal rights UN to all people, not just humans.

Here is the text of the proposal (on page 10 as of 5:11 PM server time)


Rights for all Intelligences
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Platynor

Description: SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

RECOGNIZING the diversity of peoples present in UN member states;

AND IN VIEW of the general disregard for non-human persons in present resolutions

THE UN HEREBY RESOLVES:

1 That any entity demonstrating not less than four of the following characteristics, including thought (a) shall be considered sapient, and the state of being such shall be called sapience;

a [THOUGHT] The ability to

i understand and communicate abstract concepts such as mathematics, philosophy, or emotional states,

ii learn new concepts and skills from sources including experience,

iii process information to draw conclusions through deduction, induction, or intuition and act accordingly,

iv make predictions for future occurrences based on previously gathered information,

b [COMMUNICATION] The ability to communicate with other entities through language or other methods of transmission,

c [ADAPTATION] The ability to adapt to unusual, adverse and changing circumstances,

d [TECHNOLOGY] The ability to manipulate or create tools or otherwise enhance the natural abilities of the individual or group,

e [SOCIETY] The ability to

i engage in social intercourse with other beings;

ii form social groups, communities, bonds, or other social ties and structures with others;

iii tolerate a diversity of social behaviors, including a preference to be left alone..

2 That any entity demonstrating sapience, whether it be biological, mechanical, digital, spiritual, communal, or of any other variety, shall be regarded for all UN purposes as a person;

3 To keep on permanent record, in several forms to be made freely available to all member states and citizens thereof, a list of all known species, subspecies, races, and other classifications which are composed of at least sixty-five percent (65%) sapient entities, and that such classes shall referred to as sapient classes;

4 That any member of a sapient class shall be regarded, for all UN purposes, as a person, even should that entity be demonstrably not sapient;

5 That the effects of all previous UN resolutions concerning Humans, or Human Beings, including Resolution 26 "The Universal Bill of Rights", shall be extended appropriately and equally to all persons until such time as they are repealed;

6 That all resolutions, past or present, which do not explicitly name Humans or Persons but which apply to Children, Prisoners, Women or other such sub-classes, including Resolution 31 "Wolfish Convention on POW", shall be regarded as applying to all persons in that sub-class regardless of sapient class unless otherwise specified;

7 That resolutions the Education For All and Free Education shall not be enforced as written, but that committees of appropriate experts shall be convened from time to time by member nations as needed to determine a suitable age for each sapient class equivalent to the human age of 18, up to which age sapient beings of that class shall have their right to free education protected;

AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS that all future resolutions use the terms "person" and "persons" unless a distinction is intended among the several sapient classes.

What do you suggest we do to help get this proposal through quorum? Our regional delegate has already endorsed this proposal, but so far, there are only 9 supporters.

We need a telegramming campaign.

Could you enlighten me on the purpose of having that passed, I don't disagree with any of it but whats the point. How does it pretain to "non-human persons in present resolutions" and "SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions"
Seems more like policies for aliens to me.

Could you enlighten me on the purpose of having that passed, I don't disagree with any of it but whats the point. How does it pretain to "non-human persons in present resolutions" and "SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions"
Seems more like policies for aliens to me.

A growing portion of the UN body includes nonhumans. Hell, my nation is a prime example of that. This is to deal with certain issues of fairness.

Could you enlighten me on the purpose of having that passed, I don't disagree with any of it but whats the point. How does it pretain to "non-human persons in present resolutions" and "SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions"
Seems more like policies for aliens to me.
It has been frequently asserted within these hallowed halls that "human rights doesn't apply to my nation of intelligent dogs!" or something like it.

This proposal seeks to apply passed UN resolutions fairly to all intelligent NSUN members.

OK I didn't know people were taking the role play to a extent that far, o well people are crazy beings.

Not sure on the legality of this...

Still, as this does nothing except expand the definition of 'human', I'd be hard pressed to see it as anything but 'Mild'.

OK I didn't know people were taking the role play to a extent that far, o well people are crazy beings.

You are free to choose that attitude. I prefer to think of this as the Universe is a diverse and wonderful place. This world we interact in, the universe of NationSTates, includes Elves and Aliens, intelligent Dogs and Vampires, and even some sapient computers. Do not all these beings deserve equal protections under the law?

ya in this imaginary game they do, well except maybe thouse computers but they arn't living. But I was just saying that because of the creativity it takes to think up of having your peoples be humanoid dogs.

ya in this imaginary game they do, well except maybe thouse computers but they arn't living. But I was just saying that because of the creativity it takes to think up of having your peoples be humanoid dogs.

In my version of English, "crazy" has negative connotations (in other words, it's a bad thing), whereas "creative" has positive connotations (in other words, it's a good thing).

From what I understand of this proposal, "sapience" does not mean "biologically alive". An intelligent computer could concievably exhibit all the criteria for "life", including reproduction. Just because it's based on circutry instead of cells doesn't invalidate it's "life-ness". And I think, specifically in DemonLordEnigma's region of space, there ARE intelligent, sapient and living computers. I believe they prefer to be called "AIs".

I'll inform my UN delegate about this. Since most nations in our region contain nonhuman species, it probably won't be too difficult to get him to support this.

Not sure on the legality of this...

Look at it this way: Those of us who do play alien races can no longer destroy a proposal just because of age issues with this passed.

I just updated the wrong thread with my suggested draft telegram and ways to come up with a list of delegates to target.

As usual, I blame the scotch.

The delegate from YGSM wonders what happened to this proposal during his absence.

How many endorsements did it get? Did anyone save the list of endorsers?

I'll copy a post I made in the other thread, since that seems to have died:

I've been away since Monday and missed everything. The proposal's looking good to me, although I'd still like to see more stringent requirements for communication - such as language that shows evidence of, say, 6th order Shannon entropy (then briefly explain that this is a measure of how complex a language is).

EDIT: See my post on page 8 about Shannon entropies

The post referenced is at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8531127&postcount=107.

Saysomething seems to have submitted a slightly different version, without the specific requirement that sapient beings fulfil the criteria of thought, but with a misspelt title (Rights of all intellegence) and a bit at the end which I'm not sure is legal, since it appears to require that member nations vote on the sapience of species - but it's quite odd, as it demands only 6% approval to be deemed sapient. I prefer the version posted here, and won't be supporting Saysomething's version, but I think that any schism in the effort to pass this needs to be sorted out.

After a brief abscence I am back. The proposal as I submitted is illegal as it attempts to amend teh education resolutions. The current proposal, although not our most current version, is there mostly to keep it visible.

So here is my proposed revision of clause 7:

7 That committees of appropriate experts shall be convened from time to time by member nations as needed to determine a suitable age for each sapient class equivalent to the human age of 18, up to which age sapient beings of that class shall have their right to free education protected;


So now there is no mention of the previous education resolutions (meaning it is much less likly to be called an amendment), and this would merely extend and obsolete the education rights protected my "Free Education" the way "Free Education" extended and obsoleted "Education for All" This is not as strong as our "amendment" because it does not release governments for providing free education to short lived races until they are 18 years old, since they are still covered by "Free Education".

I've been getting some feedback from nations composed of non-humans, and they have issues with the wording as it stands now. I will telegram them with this current thread and hopefully get additional feedback w/regards to the proposal's wording. (because if we can't get support from non-human nations, what's the point?)

So here is my proposed revision of clause 7:

7 That committees of appropriate experts shall be convened from time to time by member nations as needed to determine a suitable age for each sapient class equivalent to the human age of 18, up to which age sapient beings of that class shall have their right to free education protected;


So now there is no mention of the previous education resolutions (meaning it is much less likly to be called an amendment), and this would merely extend and obsolete the education rights protected my "Free Education" the way "Free Education" extended and obsoleted "Education for All" This is not as strong as our "amendment" because it does not release governments for providing free education to short lived races until they are 18 years old, since they are still covered by "Free Education".

Has that new version been checked by a mod for legality?

I've been getting some feedback from nations composed of non-humans, and they have issues with the wording as it stands now. I will telegram them with this current thread and hopefully get additional feedback w/regards to the proposal's wording. (because if we can't get support from non-human nations, what's the point?)

What kind of thing have they been saying?

Sigh, I knew someone was going to make me post this here :p

We regret to inform you that we cannot endorse your resolution. We feel it shows a blatant bias towards humans, as it seeks to elevate animals that exhibit “sapient” qualities to persons. Unfortunately by definition not many animals can exhibit sapient qualities, humans included, as sapient means having great wisdom or insight. Many animals are already considered sentient beings, however Homo sapiens is a biological term, not a term of dominance. Homo sapiens are a branch of the primate family Hominidae. By attempting to change the terminology, it by default acknowledges the superiority of the human race; further more, by extending this privilege to only the animals that demonstrate the narrow set of criteria you laid forth will create a bias towards the animals that we protect.

The Emperor of Dragiona

I have invited a representative of Dragonia to participate in this thread. I have a suspicion (that is unconfirmed) that this nation is populated by dragons.

First Equal of Bitewaldi

Populated by The Damned :eek: , not dragons, so in essence some of us are former humans among other things. Give me some time to rest and ponder over this resolution and I'll give you what will hopefully be well thought suggestions.

DX
Emperor of Dragiona

The preamble needs to make it clear that we're not in the real world. There should be a clause saying "Noting the many citizens of UN nations, including elves, AIs [add some of the more common RP species here], which are clearly deserving of the same rights and respect as humans but who are not currently protected by species-centric UN legislation".

That should clarify this for players who do not frequent the forum and don't know about the RPers in the UN.

Can someone please post the most current version of the resolution?

I believe this is it:

Rights for all Intelligences
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Platynor

Description: SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

RECOGNIZING the diversity of peoples present in UN member states;

AND IN VIEW of the general disregard for non-human persons in present resolutions

THE UN HEREBY RESOLVES:

1 That any entity demonstrating not less than four of the following characteristics, including thought (a) shall be considered sapient, and the state of being such shall be called sapience;

a [THOUGHT] The ability to

i understand and communicate abstract concepts such as mathematics, philosophy, or emotional states,

ii learn new concepts and skills from sources including experience,

iii process information to draw conclusions through deduction, induction, or intuition and act accordingly,

iv make predictions for future occurrences based on previously gathered information,

b [COMMUNICATION] The ability to communicate with other entities through language or other methods of transmission,

c [ADAPTATION] The ability to adapt to unusual, adverse and changing circumstances,

d [TECHNOLOGY] The ability to manipulate or create tools or otherwise enhance the natural abilities of the individual or group,

e [SOCIETY] The ability to

i engage in social intercourse with other beings;

ii form social groups, communities, bonds, or other social ties and structures with others;

iii tolerate a diversity of social behaviors, including a preference to be left alone..

2 That any entity demonstrating sapience, whether it be biological, mechanical, digital, spiritual, communal, or of any other variety, shall be regarded for all UN purposes as a person;

3 To keep on permanent record, in several forms to be made freely available to all member states and citizens thereof, a list of all known species, subspecies, races, and other classifications which are composed of at least sixty-five percent (65%) sapient entities, and that such classes shall referred to as sapient classes;

4 That any member of a sapient class shall be regarded, for all UN purposes, as a person, even should that entity be demonstrably not sapient;

5 That the effects of all previous UN resolutions concerning Humans, or Human Beings, including Resolution 26 "The Universal Bill of Rights", shall be extended appropriately and equally to all persons until such time as they are repealed;

6 That all resolutions, past or present, which do not explicitly name Humans or Persons but which apply to Children, Prisoners, Women or other such sub-classes, including Resolution 31 "Wolfish Convention on POW", shall be regarded as applying to all persons in that sub-class regardless of sapient class unless otherwise specified;

7 That committees of appropriate experts shall be convened from time to time by member nations as needed to determine a suitable age for each sapient class equivalent to the human age of 18, up to which age sapient beings of that class shall have their right to free education protected;

AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS that all future resolutions use the terms "person" and "persons" unless a distinction is intended among the several sapient classes.

Sigh, I knew someone was going to make me post this here :p



I have invited a representative of Dragonia to participate in this thread. I have a suspicion (that is unconfirmed) that this nation is populated by dragons.

First Equal of Bitewaldi

I'm going to go ahead and say this: I told you so.

Sorry my bad I ment to post Playtnor's version but I put down an earlier draft I had on file by mistake.
Well calk it up I'm only a non descript intellegent being.

How about a clause "joining the UN automatically adds that nation's species making the attempt to join, sentient"?

How about a clause "joining the UN automatically adds that nation's species making the attempt to join, sentient"?

I don't know about that - a nation could be ruled by an elite of sapients, but the majority of the citizenry might not be sapient. A lot of nations are mixed-species.

I thought a while about such a clause, but since a nations government decides who is granted citizenship it would not really protect anybody. All a government has to do sidestep that is revoke some speices citizenship.

TO address the issue of the resolution sounding pro-Human:

Man does that hurt, we tried rather hard to avoid that. In the original draft as I first saw it, the term Human was redefined to include all intelligent species. We had some complaints that some 'higher forms' like Elves would be insulted to be called human. So we reworded the whole thing. We used the term "sapient" because we identifying sapience as the defining characteristic of personhood. It is nothing more than an unhappy anoyance (and a rather egotistic one at that) that humans chose to call them selves H. sapiens.

So what suggestions do y'all have to offer to make this resolution sound more ... non-anthrocentric?

Does this make the intent more clear?


SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

RECOGNIZING the diversity of peoples present in UN member states, including Elves, AIs, Extraterrestials, and Spirits, among a multitude of others;

AND IN VIEW of the general disregard for non-human persons and the nearly universal anthrocentricity in present resolutions

THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY RESOLVE...

Does this make the intent more clear?


SEEKING fairness and equality in the application of all resolutions;

RECOGNIZING the diversity of peoples present in UN member states, including Elves, AIs, Extraterrestials, and Spirits, among a multitude of others;

AND IN VIEW of the general disregard for non-human persons and the nearly universal anthrocentricity in present resolutions

THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY RESOLVE...

That's good.

Sorry been drunk these past few days, considering in real life I am about to graduate with a degree in foreign affairs I should be much more active....okay back to role playing...

It would be much more desirable to characterize a species as sentient rather than doing an et al. Sentient means that they display advance thought process, it should encompass all intelligent beings. But we should include a clause for beings that are non-sentient as well.

I apologize if anything is spelt wrong, I am still in a drunken state.

DX
The Emperor of Dragiona

Sorry been drunk these past few days, considering in real life I am about to graduate with a degree in foreign affairs I should be much more active....okay back to role playing...

It would be much more desirable to characterize a species as sentient rather than doing an et al. Sentient means that they display advance thought process, it should encompass all intelligent beings. But we should include a clause for beings that are non-sentient as well.

I apologize if anything is spelt wrong, I am still in a drunken state.

DX
The Emperor of Dragiona

Actually, the proposal did originally say sentient, I think, but we decided it isn't the appropriate word:

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Exeriencing sensation or feeling.

For a UK English dictionary definition, my Concise Oxford defines sentient as "having the power of perception by the senses".

At the same time, due to humans the word "sapience" has an extreme association with it that you cannot simply shake.

I like the recent idea, but I must reiterate that you cannot separate sapience from a human connection.

What term should we use then?

Sapience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with intelligence. Sapience is synonymous with some usages of the term sentient, though the two are not exactly equal: sentience is the ability to sense or feel, while sapience is the ability to think about sensations, feelings and ideas. In usage, sentience and sapience both imply some form or state of consciousness, although consciousness is not strictly required in the case of sentience (as applied to plant life, which ordinarily react to the stimuli of warmth and ultraviolet radiation from the sun).

Sapience is derived from the Latin word, "sapere", which means to taste, perceive, and the present participle of which forms part of Homo sapiens, the biological classification created by Carolus Linnaeus to describe the human race.

An artificially intelligent agent could demonstrate sapience while not having any capacity to feel, while an animal might demonstrate it can feel (or react to) pain while not behaving with intelligence.

While precise definitions of sapience and sentience vary, it is agreed upon that most humans possess both. In science-fiction and animal rights (such as the Great Ape Project) the term 'person' is applied to any sapient being.

While I don't represent a non-human nation, I still think it's the best word for the job for lack of a better replacement.

What term should we use then?

Intelligent. Then we define what type we are looking for. Intelligence covers both sapience and sentience.

Sapience
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with intelligence. Sapience is synonymous with some usages of the term sentient, though the two are not exactly equal: sentience is the ability to sense or feel, while sapience is the ability to think about sensations, feelings and ideas. In usage, sentience and sapience both imply some form or state of consciousness, although consciousness is not strictly required in the case of sentience (as applied to plant life, which ordinarily react to the stimuli of warmth and ultraviolet radiation from the sun).

Sapience is derived from the Latin word, "sapere", which means to taste, perceive, and the present participle of which forms part of Homo sapiens, the biological classification created by Carolus Linnaeus to describe the human race.

An artificially intelligent agent could demonstrate sapience while not having any capacity to feel, while an animal might demonstrate it can feel (or react to) pain while not behaving with intelligence.

While precise definitions of sapience and sentience vary, it is agreed upon that most humans possess both. In science-fiction and animal rights (such as the Great Ape Project) the term 'person' is applied to any sapient being.

While I don't represent a non-human nation, I still think it's the best word for the job for lack of a better replacement.

And no matter how hard you try to define it or justify it, you cannot remove the taint of human association from it. As long as humanity includes the word "sapiens" (which is what sapience is derived from) in its scientific name, the word will carry a stigma against it.

It all depends what you are using to define your words. This is the Websters definition of both terms:

Main Entry: sa·pi·ent
Pronunciation: 'sA-pE-&nt, 'sa-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin sapient-, sapiens, from present participle of sapere to taste, be wise -- more at SAGE
: possessing or expressing great sagacity
synonym see WISE
- sa·pi·ent·ly adverb

Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
- sen·tient·ly adverb

According to the definitive American dictionary, sapient does not mean intelligent, a being could be intelligent but not wise. In fact most humans are not wise, but they are intelligent. When I say sentient, I am not talking just about the ability to feel, but it is the second definition that is the most important, the ability to be aware. For that reason I think sentient is the best word choice, and to avoid confusion, in the resolution you can provide the definition of the word in context to the resolution.

Yes, many may feel that because we refer to ourselves with it, we are comparing everything else to humans. I still don't there's anything else that works better. As for sentient, I belive the example Wikipedia uses hit's the nail on the head. Is a normal housecat not aware of where it lives, when it's owner feeds it? Most life forms are sentient. It's too broad a term to use for these pourposes. If there are any feline races out there, I mean no offense to you, that's just an example.

Yes, many may feel that because we refer to ourselves with it, we are comparing everything else to humans. I still don't there's anything else that works better. As for sentient, I belive the example Wikipedia uses hit's the nail on the head. Is a normal housecat not aware of where it lives, when it's owner feeds it? Most life forms are sentient. It's too broad a term to use for these pourposes. If there are any feline races out there, I mean no offense to you, that's just an example.

I'm sure you can get the catgirls of 1 Infinite Loop to forgive you.

The comment about sentience there is why I suggested intelligence. We can define it as we may without have a stigma attached.

That sounds acceptable to me.

Intelligence would be acceptable, though to me it seems more attached to comparisons between individuals within the species that we want this proposal to cover than the alternatives.

I'm ready to vote