NationStates Jolt Archive

'SAPIENT RIGHTS'

A proposal to extend the range of species to which ‘Human Rights’ legislation should apply.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : St Edmund (if I can get the necessary endorsements…)

Description : All UN and national legislation on the subject of Human Rights shall be deemed applicable to the members of all verifiably sapient species, rather than just to Humans.

Argument : The United Nations,
RECOGNISING that the UN has a role to play in setting basic levels of Human Rights that should apply.
RECOGNISING that the populations of some nations include members of various non-Human species that are verifiably as sapient as Humanity.
BELIEVING that the members of any such verifiably sapient species should be entitled to all of the same basic rights as Humans.
NOTING, however, that some species may undergo metamorphosis between distinct stages in their life cycle, and/or may be divided into biological ‘castes’, and that in certain cases it may only be some of those stages or castes whose members are actually sapient.
NOTING also that in some cases the existence of such non-sapient subdivisions within a species that also contains one or more sapient subdivisions may be necessary for the continued existence of those sapient subdivisions.
REQUIRES all nations to pass laws redefining the concept of 'Human Rights', as expressed in any UN or national legislation, as actually meaning 'Sapient Rights', and to apply those laws equally to the members of all verifiably sapient species rather than just to Humans; except that where any particular species contains non-sapient stages or castes as well as sapient ones the members of the non-sapient categories need not be given the same rights as their sapient relatives, although if the continued existence of those non-sapient categories is necessary for the continued existence of the sapient categories too then any attempt at exterminating them shall be considered an attempt at genocide.


--------------------------------------

Well?

Well?

That's a very deep subject. I'll get back to you after some research.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Might help to define "sapient."

That research did not take as long as I thought it would. You may want to review a previous discussion on the subject (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436268).

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Well?Short answer: Your only applicable category here would be "Human Rights," which, erm, would not apply, since you are attempting to legislate the rights of non-humans.

REQUIRES all nations to pass laws redefining the concept of 'Human Rights', as expressed in any UN or national legislation, as actually meaning 'Sapient Rights', and to apply those laws equally to the members of all verifiably sapient species rather than just to HumansAnd who, pray tell, "verifies" species sapience? Since the UN lacks any body of authority to rule on a case-by-case basis, the task would naturally fall to member governments*, allowing more duplicitous regimes to continue to disenfranchize sapient beings simply by refusing to recognize their sapience; therefore this proposal is meaningless.

*as it ought to, IMHO.

This is a very interesting proposal which we hope will produce equally interesting debate. We would urge the honorable representative from St Edmund and any others who might wish to contribute to this debate to study the thread recommended by our distinguished colleague from Texas Hotrodders. The views and concerns raised there are well worth considering.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Protean Commonwealth of Pontinia will fully support this proposal, especially as some of our closest allies are non-countries populated largely by sapient, non-human beings.
Arthur Redburn
United Nations Representative
The Protean Commonwealth of Pontinia

That research did not take as long as I thought it would. You may want to review a previous discussion on the subject (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436268).

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones


Okay, I've now read that thread (which I didn't see before this because it was posted when I was still very new to the UN, and to NS in general, and hadn't yet started looking at the forum as a whole rather than just at some of the indivdual threads that got listed on the side of NS pages), and I found the discussion within it interesting.
I agree, as the title chosen for my own proposal presumably indicates anyway, with the people who favoured using the term 'sapient' rather than the term 'sentient': MY definition of the difference between those two terms would be that a sentient being is capable of realising that it exists whilst a sapient being is capable of realising that it realises this...
I wonder whether the proposal itself needs to contain a definition of sapience, or whether establishing a UN Commission to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis would suffice?

And who, pray tell, "verifies" species sapience? Since the UN lacks any body of authority to rule on a case-by-case basis, the task would naturally fall to member governments*, allowing more duplicitous regimes to continue to disenfranchize sapient beings simply by refusing to recognize their sapience; therefore this proposal is meaningless.

*as it ought to, IMHO.

We disagree completely with the honorable delegate from Omigodtheykilledkenny that this draft proposal is meaningless. If he will look at the NSUN's principal resolution in the human rights category, "The Universal Bill of Rights", he will see that it very specifically applies only to "human beings". Unless you're willing to assume that humans are the only sapient creatures in the world of NS, this proposal is far from meaningless.

We believe that there's much work to be done on this draft before it reaches the point that we could vote for it. We would agree that the issue of how it would be determined that a species is "verifiably sapient" is a difficult and perhaps troubling one. But we also believe this draft is a fine effort and deserves careful thought and discussion and should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I wonder whether the proposal itself needs to contain a definition of sapience, or whether establishing a UN Commission to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis would suffice?Adding as much would earn you my opposition, as it has always fallen upon individual nations to recognize the sapience of their own native beings, and I see no reason to usurp that right. I would sooner support TH's proposal.

Unless you're willing to assume that humans are the only sapient creatures in the world of NS, this proposal is far from meaningless.


I tend to go the other way - I assume that, while the law was drafted with a human-centric bias - it applies to all sentient/sapient beings. While my nation is purely made up of humans (or at least - the only citizens in our nation are humans), another nation I know of had three races - Humans, Elves and Dwarves. Rather than drafting complex laws to cover all of them, and rather than having to pass all UN law as "sentient" rather than "human", the law makers of that nation just took "a human being" to mean "a sentient being", and that anywhere it said "a human" could be read as "an elf" or "a dwarf".

It made for much tidier laws.


(ooc - of course, the other alternative is to have the game recoded to replace "human rights" with "sentient/sapient" rights, but what are the odds of getting that to happen?)

The Aarmanian Senate has been mulling over a similar proposal, the sticking point of course being what does or does not constitute sapience.

Hence...

Might help to define "sapient."

We're leaning towards a criteria, but we're saving it for our own proposal...

I tend to go the other way - I assume that, while the law was drafted with a human-centric bias - it applies to all sentient/sapient beings. While my nation is purely made up of humans (or at least - the only citizens in our nation are humans), another nation I know of had three races - Humans, Elves and Dwarves. Rather than drafting complex laws to cover all of them, and rather than having to pass all UN law as "sentient" rather than "human", the law makers of that nation just took "a human being" to mean "a sentient being", and that anywhere it said "a human" could be read as "an elf" or "a dwarf".

It made for much tidier laws.


Our laws, rather than being centered on "human" were centered on persons... We extended the definition of "person" to include [much as your example], humans [which before person was limited to the Tekaniou only], and pretty much every known sentient biologic... As well as extending to cover sentient Artificial Lifeforms [non-biologic lifeforms]

Does this include inflatable Gandalfs then?

i find also this topic very interesting
i'm not sure but tend to think that a definition even a vague one will be usefull

there is a list of "Species" in ns wiki
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species
it could be interesting, aside from the proposition to have a second list in NS wiki with only "sapient species"

i find also this topic very interesting
i'm not sure but tend to think that a definition even a vague one will be usefull

there is a list of "Species" in ns wiki
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species
it could be interesting, aside from the proposition to have a second list in NS wiki with only "sapient species"

Good point. We would not include vampires as sentient - infact we would kill them on sight, even though they fit every criteria for sentience (excluding the "being alive" part) - yet apparently other nations would treat them as such. Should we be forced to put up with them cause other nations think they are sentient?

Also - Gold Dragons, but that's another matter :}

Good point. We would not include vampires as sentient - infact we would kill them on sight, even though they fit every criteria for sentience (excluding the "being alive" part) - yet apparently other nations would treat them as such. Should we be forced to put up with them cause other nations think they are sentient?

Also - Gold Dragons, but that's another matter :}

Odd, at least as far as I can understand, if Vampires entered into the dominions of the Constitutional Republic, they would be considered sentient under our laws. Not so sure about Gold Dragons... Under our law, animals (such as the felines, canines and rodents, as normally understood) are not sentient.... Our basis is not defined by the "persons" biology, rather upon their capabilities. We don't consider "being alive" (as a biochemical process) as even being relevant to defining sentience.

Odd, at least as far as I can understand, if Vampires entered into the dominions of the Constitutional Republic, they would be considered sentient under our laws.


And for most situations I would agree, however given that vampires either kill anyone they meet or turn them, we tend to ensure they are killed. And if necessary, we will kill them all, even if that means committing what some people would see as genocide.

So - should we be forced to accept them as sentient just because other nations accept them as so?


Not so sure about Gold Dragons... Under our law, animals (such as the felines, canines and rodents, as normally understood) are not sentient.... Our basis is not defined by the "persons" biology, rather upon their capabilities. We don't consider "being alive" (as a biochemical process) as even being relevant to defining sentience.

Gold dragons, from what my late friend Tori told me, are capable of speach, of logical thought and so forth. They are mostly good, but sometimes they go bad. They fit the qualifications for sentient, however after some of the slaughters they have engaged in, they are not protected by Pallatium law as sentient, because, while they display qualities of sentience, they tend to react more as animals than "humans" (etc)

Anyway - this might be wandering from the topic. But it's just examples of how defining sentience between nations will be somewhat of a nightmare.

Description : All UN and national legislation on the subject of Human Rights shall be deemed applicable to the members of all verifiably sapient species, rather than just to Humans.


I think maybe the word you are searching for is sentient. Sapient, as defined by dictionary.com, means: having great wisdom and discernment. Sentient refers to having consiousness of ones self.

You may have meant sapient, but I think sentient applies better, good issue though, I approve it so far, though I think it needs to be formatted better.

Precisely why I was curious to see a definition of "sapient."

I think maybe the word you are searching for is sentient. Sapient, as defined by dictionary.com, means: having great wisdom and discernment. Sentient refers to having consiousness of ones self.

You may have meant sapient, but I think sentient applies better, good issue though, I approve it so far, though I think it needs to be formatted better.

The issue of "sapient" vs. "sentient" was discussed at some length in the thread which the honorable representative of Texas Hotrodders drew to the attention of members earlier and which we once again commend to their attention:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436268

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yeah, I realized that after I posted, guess I'll read the linked discuaaion before recovering more ground.

OK, so I read the thread and what I got out of it was that "sapient" seems to be a technically more accurate term, though "sentient" has the benefit of being more well known. About defining sentient or sapient, I think the best definintion from the thread came from Tajiri San on this page (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436268&page=5), which defines it as any species capable of organizing a country.

I don't see the importance of thisw proposal. Humans have too many rights as it is, and you want to extend them to other creature?

I would support the propsal, but I would suggest that a UN Committe be formed that will decide the sapient/sentient of a race. That way, no nation would make the law meaningless.

This committe would decide if a species will get these rights, and it will be the final aritiber in all disputes concering the resolution.

All shall be handled well.

(Hey, we lack committes as it is. Let defer issues of many resolutions to committes, staffed by NSUN Players, instead of arguring them here. It will help out UN roleplaying, which is a dying breed, and it will also get everything fine. I don't like my nation being contorlled by gnomes. Better to be contorlled by some bastard-like nation which I can hate all my life than to be contorlled by some gnomes who I don't know exist. [It'll help roleplaying, since techincally, nobody in NS knows there is such thing as UN gnomes].)

in some cases a committee making a decision is better. it's your peers making a ruling rather than a gnome. a appeal mechanism would be a good idea as well in case nations think they've been unfairly treated.

some existing resolutions already have committes attached to them and most nations parliments would have committes that debate things without cluttering up the main chamber.

if the idea works for nation governments why not the UN.

OOC: if this dosen't violate games mechanics why not go for it?

OOC: Committes do not violate game mechcanis. Look at TPP. Look at the many UN Committes staffed by players.

However they are inactive. I hope this committe be active!

I would rather (and this may get round the problem of the whole human rights thing) see a "Definition of Human" proposal, that defines a human as a sapient species, which would mean that the final clause would not be necessary...

I would rather (and this may get round the problem of the whole human rights thing) see a "Definition of Human" proposal, that defines a human as a sapient species, which would mean that the final clause would not be necessary...

The problem with that is however you define a human, you risk including foetuses in the description (I have seen it done before) and consequently outlawing abortion indirectly.

That's a good point. However it is defined needs to avoid that problem.

I would rather (and this may get round the problem of the whole human rights thing) see a "Definition of Human" proposal, that defines a human as a sapient species, which would mean that the final clause would not be necessary...


So none of the existing 'Human Rights' resolutions define "human" either?
H'mm.
Does this mean that governments could declare certain ethnic/racial groups (whose members would be considered human by most other nations) to be "sub-human", and thus unprotected by those laws (even the one against genocide) without breaking UN rules?
Not that I'd do that, of course, but finding loopholes is entertaining... ;-)

The problem with that is however you define a human, you risk including foetuses in the description (I have seen it done before) and consequently outlawing abortion indirectly.

I think that the clause about non-sapient stages in the life-cycles of otherwise-sapient species could be considered relevant there.

I'm increasingly inclined to follow the suggestion made by several earlier commenters, and assign the sorting out of who is - or isn't- considered sapient to a UN committee...

A revised draft of the proposal is underway.

There was a fairly concerted effort to draft a comprehensive proposal to deal with this in the spring. We were working on more detailed assessments of species.

Here's a link to the first thread on it (the text evolved a lot in this discussion from the original draft in the first post):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405604

and the second thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408767&highlight=sapient

The whole thing pretty much fizzled out.

A related proposition has been submitted today:


RIGHTS FOR AI

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: REBOK

Description: I RECENTLY BECAME AWARE OF THE EXSISTANCE OF ADVANCED ARTIFICAL INTELEGENCE AND I PROPOSE THAT THE UN FOLLOW MY LEAD BY MAKING ARTIFICALY INTELIGENT SAPIANS CITEZENS.


It's not well written, but i like the spirit

A related proposition has been submitted today:



It's not well written, but i like the spirit

It's already been deleted :}

So none of the existing 'Human Rights' resolutions define "human" either?
H'mm.
Does this mean that governments could declare certain ethnic/racial groups (whose members would be considered human by most other nations) to be "sub-human", and thus unprotected by those laws (even the one against genocide) without breaking UN rules?
Not that I'd do that, of course, but finding loopholes is entertaining... ;-)

I suppose so; never really thought about it!

So, under this logic I could declare people in my nation non-sapient and have UN resolutions not apply to them? This is becoming interesting...

i am going to call 'house of cards' on this one, in that it seems more like an amendmant than a proposal. maybe you should redefine it to me 'non-human sapient rights', because then it would make it legal

I would support the propsal, but I would suggest that a UN Committe be formed that will decide the sapient/sentient of a race. That way, no nation would make the law meaningless.

This committe would decide if a species will get these rights, and it will be the final aritiber in all disputes concering the resolution.

All shall be handled well.

(Hey, we lack committes as it is. Let defer issues of many resolutions to committes, staffed by NSUN Players, instead of arguring them here. It will help out UN roleplaying, which is a dying breed, and it will also get everything fine. I don't like my nation being contorlled by gnomes. Better to be contorlled by some bastard-like nation which I can hate all my life than to be contorlled by some gnomes who I don't know exist. [It'll help roleplaying, since techincally, nobody in NS knows there is such thing as UN gnomes].)

Reposting. I think this should be supported, so that we make sure that sapinet species (like gnomes) be protected under UN resolutions.

Because a flaw in intrinsic in your prior proposal in that 'Human rights' was made for humans. Not all sapient beings would have the need nor the right to bear arms, free speech?, religion?, etc. If they have no need for it why express it. Drive a car? Drink after the age of 21?
And on the flip side Eat your own feces.
Drink your own urine.
Eat afterbirth.
People can get locked up for such things by why take away these rights that they have.

Don't force laws onto something that has no merit Instead make laws which safeguard their rights.



A proposal to extend the range of species to which ‘Human Rights’ legislation should apply.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Mild
Proposed by : St Edmund (if I can get the necessary endorsements…)

Description : All UN and national legislation on the subject of Human Rights shall be deemed applicable to the members of all verifiably sapient species, rather than just to Humans.

Argument: The United Nations,
RECOGNISING that the UN has a role to play in setting basic levels of Human Rights that should apply.
RECOGNISING that the populations of some nations include members of various non-Human species that are verifiably as sapient as Humanity, and
BELIEVING that the members of any such verifiably sapient species should be entitled to some of the same basic rights as Humans, and
NOTING that some species may undergo metamorphosis between distinct stages in their life cycle, and/or may be divided into biological ‘castes’, and that in certain cases it may only be some of those stages or castes whose members are actually sapient, and
NOTING also that in some cases the existence of such non-sapient subdivisions within a species that also contains one or more sapient subdivisions may be necessary for the continued existence of those sapient subdivisions, and
NOTING that some laws cannot be applied to other sapient species, we
REQUIRE all nations to generate laws defining ‘Sapient Rights’ using ‘Human Rights', as expressed in any UN or national legislation, as a model, and to apply those laws equally to the members of all verifiably sapient species and enjoin them with Human rights.

Sapients might share most DNA similarities with us, but they are not us. Why should we give our rights to a creature which has not asked for it?
Wouldn't it be better to let sapient communities evolve, without our interference? That way they could formulate rights of sapients themselves. It would make more sense to let the beings in question to be allowed to make there own rights, then let us do it for them!
Optischer

Sapients might share most DNA similarities with us, but they are not us. Why should we give our rights to a creature which has not asked for it?
Wouldn't it be better to let sapient communities evolve, without our interference? That way they could formulate rights of sapients themselves. It would make more sense to let the beings in question to be allowed to make there own rights, then let us do it for them!
Optischer

What if they are our intellectual equals, but they are surpressed nonetheless?

We should play no part in encouraging sapients or discouraging them from natural evolution. If they are our Intellectual equals, then are they are Emotional equals? I doubt these sapients would be exact replicas of us, and if they're not (which they most likely are not our replicas) then we should play no part, major or minor, in their world other than do what we do. Even if they are exact replicas, they still aren't humans. Humans are a sentient race of beings who have colonised and conquered the world, they are humans which habitate sections of land, called countries. If they are or aren't like us, they have not been through or done what we have donne. We have been here for long enough, I think, to know that no matter what anybody can say, and no matter what anybody can do, we are humans and they are whatever they want to be called.
Optischer

We should play no part in encouraging sapients or discouraging them from natural evolution. If they are our Intellectual equals, then are they are Emotional equals? I doubt these sapients would be exact replicas of us, and if they're not (which they most likely are not our replicas) then we should play no part, major or minor, in their world other than do what we do. Even if they are exact replicas, they still aren't humans. Humans are a sentient race of beings who have colonised and conquered the world, they are humans which habitate sections of land, called countries. If they are or aren't like us, they have not been through or done what we have donne. We have been here for long enough, I think, to know that no matter what anybody can say, and no matter what anybody can do, we are humans and they are whatever they want to be called.
Optischer

What you fail to understand is that to match the criteria of sapient requires meeting much more stringent requirements than sentient.

What you further fail to understand is that humans are not the sole fully evolved species that is part of this United Nations. Many nations do no even contain a single human citizen. There are nations that have everything from dwarves, trolls, gnomes and elves to fully sentient and sapient dolphins, cats, and mice to Vulcans, Wookies, Vorlons, and other species who's official names I cannot pronounce because it cannot be translated correctly to English.

then maybe they should set up their own version of the UN and set up their own rights, instead of being fed dinner with a spoon.
"Here comes the yummy sapient rights proposal open up!"
Optischer

I would like to propose the following; i don’t know if it’s legal or a very good idea, but it’s seems to me to be fun:

Every nation can recognize as “sapient” the list of species they want but should include in their national list the “UN sapient list”.

The “UN sapient list” includes humans, gnomes, dolphins (ok, not dolphins, I will not insist) and the species voted by the “UN sapient committee”

The “UN sapient committee” could be hosted by the "United Nation organisation forum"
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?act=SC&c=3

Every nation registered on the "UN organisations forum" has 1 vote
Species are recognized “sapient” if the majority of nations who voted, voted for
The vote last 1 week
Vote begin on wednesday, 3 votes can be organised by week, new species submitted are in queue

For the vote to take place, the following is required:

1-A nation should ask the “UN sapient committee” to include a species in the list, with a short or very short description of the species, by posting on the UN organisations forum

2-The species should be referenced in the species index of the "Worldwide encyclopedia" (=NS wiki):
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species

3-LAE swear to never lobby the “UN sapient committee” to include dolphins nor even bonobos and the comitee cannot start a vote about species widely recognized as animals (= Real Life animals)

then maybe they should set up their own version of the UN and set up their own rights, instead of being fed dinner with a spoon.
"Here comes the yummy sapient rights proposal open up!"
Optischer

So you're saying that the UN, as the largest international body, should not be accepting of its non-human members and grant them the same rights and permissions as those of us who are humans?

an interesting law in the nation of "Arizona Nova":
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sentient_Civil_Rights_Act

extract:
--------------
An Act Recognizing the Fundamental Civil Rights of all Sentient Creatures and Constructs, defined forthwith as this:

* 1. Possessing the capacity for intelligence, defined as the ability to solve problems and learn.
* 2. Possessing self-awareness, and the capacity to think independently*; to be able to act against instinct/programmed laws or not be bound to act only upon instinct/programmed laws.
----------------------

* 2. Possessing self-awareness, and the capacity to think independently*; to be able to act against instinct/programmed laws or not be bound to act only upon instinct/programmed laws.
----------------------

How do we know that anything has this ability? From my point of view, I know that I am self-aware, but I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anyone else, human or non-human, is also self-aware. I also have no evidence to suggest that I or any other entity has the capacity to defy its brain's programming. There is no good scientific reason to believe that all our decisions and thoughts are not merely the results of the chemical and electrical activity in our neurons, in the context of their brain's wiring (which is determined by the genome and by environmental and social inputs, in much the same way as a simple learning robot has a basic design and can then take in new information to programme new behaviours).

Because a flaw in intrinsic in your prior proposal in that 'Human rights' was made for humans. Not all sapient beings would have the need nor the right to bear arms, free speech?, religion?, etc. If they have no need for it why express it. Drive a car? Drink after the age of 21?

Exercising rights isn't compulsory: If some sapient beings don't need all of those rights then they don't need to use them... This just allows them to use those rights that they do need...

And on the flip side Eat your own feces.
Drink your own urine.
Eat afterbirth.
People can get locked up for such things by why take away these rights that they have.

How does this resolution "take away" any of their rights, except of course their "right" to exercise prejudice against other sapient beings?

Sapients might share most DNA similarities with us, but they are not us. Why should we give our rights to a creature which has not asked for it?
Wouldn't it be better to let sapient communities evolve, without our interference? That way they could formulate rights of sapients themselves. It would make more sense to let the beings in question to be allowed to make there own rights, then let us do it for them!
Optischer

Where they live by themselves, fine... but many of them live within nations that are dominated by humans, or by members of yet other species, and it seems to me that those may need legal protection.

then maybe they should set up their own version of the UN and set up their own rights, instead of being fed dinner with a spoon.
"Here comes the yummy sapient rights proposal open up!"
Optischer


And who is going to do the code to incorporate that into the game?

I would like to propose the following; i don’t know if it’s legal or a very good idea, but it’s seems to me to be fun:

Every nation can recognize as “sapient” the list of species they want but should include in their national list the “UN sapient list”.

The “UN sapient list” includes humans, gnomes, dolphins (ok, not dolphins, I will not insist) and the species voted by the “UN sapient committee”

The “UN sapient committee” could be hosted by the "United Nation organisation forum"
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?act=SC&c=3

Every nation registered on the "UN organisations forum" has 1 vote
Species are recognized “sapient” if the majority of nations who voted, voted for
The vote last 1 week
Vote begin on wednesday, 3 votes can be organised by week, new species submitted are in queue

For the vote to take place, the following is required:

1-A nation should ask the “UN sapient committee” to include a species in the list, with a short or very short description of the species, by posting on the UN organisations forum

2-The species should be referenced in the species index of the "Worldwide encyclopedia" (=NS wiki):
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Species

3-LAE swear to never lobby the “UN sapient committee” to include dolphins nor even bonobos and the comitee cannot start a vote about species widely recognized as animals (= Real Life animals)

That's a very interesting proposal. I'm not sure how well it would work, but it is very interesting...

Well, here’s a revised version of my proposal…

-------------------------------------------

DEFINITION OF ‘HUMAN’

A proposal to define the types of beings to whom ‘Human Rights’ legislation should apply.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: St Edmund

Description: National governments shall be required to consider all sapient life-forms as legally ‘human’, and thus just as protected under UN & national laws as members of the species Homo sapiens are.

Argument: The United Nations,
NOTING that none of the UN Resolutions that have been passed so far actually defines the term ‘Human’.
RECOGNISING that the populations of some nations include living beings of various kinds that are verifiably as sapient as normal members of the biological species Homo sapiens but who are not actually members of that species.
BELIEVING that, species should not be considered a valid basis for unfair discrimination between sapient beings.
NOTING, however, that some species’ life-cycles may include both sapient & non-sapient stages, that the unborn or unhatched young of some sapient species may be deemed insufficiently sapient to deserve full legal protection, that some species may be divided into biological ‘castes’ not all of which have sapient members, and that even occasional individuals from species that are not usually considered sapient might show verifiable sapience.
NOTING also that in some cases the existence of non-sapient subdivisions within species that also contain sapient subdivisions may be needed for the continued existence of those species.
NOTING further that factors such as low intelligence or innate psychology might render some beings who qualify as sapient incapable of using all the rights that are held by other sapient beings.
NOTING further that sapient beings of certain kinds are habitual predators upon other sapient beings, and that members of potential prey species cannot be expected to tolerate this.
REQUIRES all member nations to pass laws defining the term ‘Human’ as meaning ‘Sapient Being of any Species’ for the purposes of any earlier UN Resolutions that are still in force, any future UN Resolutions that do not explicitly state otherwise, and all national & sub-national legislation, and to apply all such laws with equal justice to all sapient life-forms rather than just to members of the species Homo sapiens with the following allowed exceptions_
a/ If a species contains non-sapient stages or castes as well as sapient ones the members of those non-sapient subdivisions need not be given the same rights as their sapient relatives, although if the continued existence of those non-sapient types is necessary for the continued existence of their species as a whole then any attempt at exterminating them shall count as attempted genocide.
b/ Some sapient beings may legally recognised individually or by category as incapable of actually exercising certain rights, due to factors such as low intelligence or innate psychology, although they shall retain the protection of those rights that do not require deliberate actions by them.
c/ Sapient beings of types who habitually prey upon other sapient beings do not have to be tolerated or granted any rights.
ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Tribunal on Sapience’ [or ‘UNToS’] to resolve any appeals against denials of recognition as sapient, or of the associated rights, and to determine which beings are covered by the allowed exemptions.


--------------------------------------

I make that 3’494 characters including spaces, so it should be just within the maximum length allowed.

The clauses about sapient beings that are habitual predators on other sapient beings is to deal with some people’s worries about, for example, vampires.

I think the fact that it only refers to “any earlier UN Resolutions that are still in force” rather than to any specific Resolutions in particular should be enough to keep it from counting as a violation of the ‘House of Cards’ rule, and that the clause about “ the unborn or unhatched young of some sapient species” should keep it from being classed as illegal due to any clash with the Abortion Rights measures.

The fact that I refer specifically to “life-forms” rather than just to “beings” is so that the two [or more?] existing ‘issues’ about rights for AIs & androids would remain valid for UN members: However I don’t see anything within this resolution that would bar national governments from also granting ‘Human Rights’ to any such beings as might exist within their territories if they wanted to do so...

You haven't defined sapience, which makes this very dodgy to try and implement.

Plus, some rights that we grant to humans may be plain inappropriate for other species. For instance, for a species that lives to 10 years, the right to an education until age 18, as guaranteed by the UN, will be grossly inappropriate, and open to abuse, as they could just stay in the school system and never work. How is the right to an abortion supposed to apply to egg-laying species? Are they allowed to smash their eggs and kill their un-"born" offspring, even though the laid egg is not dependent on the mother?

How do we know that anything has this ability? From my point of view, I know that I am self-aware, but I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anyone else, human or non-human, is also self-aware. I also have no evidence to suggest that I or any other entity has the capacity to defy its brain's programming. There is no good scientific reason to believe that all our decisions and thoughts are not merely the results of the chemical and electrical activity in our neurons, in the context of their brain's wiring (which is determined by the genome and by environmental and social inputs, in much the same way as a simple learning robot has a basic design and can then take in new information to programme new behaviours).

you right
it will be very hard to agree with a definition
it's why i think a “UN sapient committee” voting for each case, and taking into account the NSwiki page of species, as i described in my former post, can be great, fun and interesting:)

You haven't defined sapience, which makes this very dodgy to try and implement.

The difficulty involved in defining sapience is why I've left this to a committee: The current idea is that any beings who think that they are sapient can complain to UNToS if they're being denied rights, which I think should mean that any species which really deserves those rights would get them... (OOC: I realise that some players will argue about whether certain species would be capable of applying to UNToS but don't see any easy way around this... Would you care to put forwards a definition of sapience for consideration?)

Plus, some rights that we grant to humans may be plain inappropriate for other species. For instance, for a species that lives to 10 years, the right to an education until age 18, as guaranteed by the UN, will be grossly inappropriate, and open to abuse, as they could just stay in the school system and never work. How is the right to an abortion supposed to apply to egg-laying species? Are they allowed to smash their eggs and kill their un-"born" offspring, even though the laid egg is not dependent on the mother?

I know, I know, the 'REQUIRES' clause of my proposal still needs some work: The bit about applying the relevant laws "with equal justice" to different species was supposed to cover details such as differing lifespans, but given the level of detail that some earlier resolutions go into I need to expand on this point somehow...
As for egg-laying species & 'Abortion', the opinion that sapience doesn't really develop until after birth is the only reason why the government of St Edmund is willing to regard abortion as justifiable (except perhaps in emergency circumstances) and if the same is true of sapience in eggs & hatchlings then "Yes" we would regard breaking eggs as equally allowable: As far as we're concerned the "dependent on the mother" argument does not count as an adequate justification for abortion, so the fact that eggs aren't [as] dependent isn't really a factor here...

I was suggesting create an international body of all sapients, and let each species have theire own UN type organisation if they want.

Would you care to put forwards a definition of sapience for consideration?)

An old proposal which I contributed to had this:

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;

I would put more detail into the communication criterion, by requiring a certain level of complexity indicated by Shannon entropies (a mathematical analysis which allows you to quantify the complexity of communications), and appoint a committee to measure species against these criteria. If the committee is not given rules to work with, I'm not comfortable with giving power to it, because we're surrendering power to the personal morals of unknown individuals (what if they were animal rights activists which chose to grant rights to all animals?).

The previous proposal had us enforcing all but the education resolutions, for which we had mystical committees working out appropriate equivalent ages for every species.

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;

This is great
do you think we can add the following (maybe it had already been said):?
-the ability to help oneother and to have compassion for oneother


I would put more detail into the communication criterion, by requiring a certain level of complexity indicated by Shannon entropies (a mathematical analysis which allows you to quantify the complexity of communications), and appoint a committee to measure species against these criteria. If the committee is not given rules to work with, I'm not comfortable with giving power to it, because we're surrendering power to the personal morals of unknown individuals (what if they were animal rights activists which chose to grant rights to all animals?).

i agree with you, also, i had said that RL animals should not qualify to even be proposed by the comitee, but i aknowledge it will maybe difficult to define in NS the equivalent of RL animals

i like the idea (even if i'm not sure about it) of a comitee, mainly for NS roleplay and fun, and hope this possibility will be explored with adequete precautions, but indeed there are some dangers, so i donno

I would like to point something out, like I said in my previous statements, they may be like us, have our emotions, our intellect and be exact replicas of us, but no matter what a sapient has in common with us, It still isn't us. If anything, why not let sapient nations create their own UN equivalent, then let us create a true internation, interspecies organisation. The UN only seems to apply to us, when sapients are polluting and wasting, we are recycling. If you give them our rights, then you must give them our restrictions and not exempt them from anything, otherwise, let them sort their own trouble out.

If you give them our rights, then you must give them our restrictions

i fully agree with you here

they may be like us, have our emotions, our intellect and be exact replicas of us, but no matter what a sapient has in common with us, It still isn't us. If anything, why not let sapient nations create their own UN equivalent, then let us create a true internation, interspecies organisation. The UN only seems to apply to us, when sapients are polluting and wasting, we are recycling.

The objective is to live in harmony. I'm afraid that what you just said is similar to what people were thinking few centuries ago: they don't have our skin color, so it' still isn't us, they are not civilized .... Why not to respect us as ours (if they qualify as sapients) and ask them (as you said) to respect us as theirs?

I believe in a same-time policy. We will respect them when hey respect us, and when we respect them, they will instantaneously be respecting us, but when they don't respect us, we won't respect them, we will be hostile when they are, I believe they either speak up now and tell us what they want, or we should just shut up and forget this all because they cannot defend themselves.
optischer

This is great
do you think we can add the following (maybe it had already been said):?
-the ability to help oneother and to have compassion for oneother

I reckon it's sufficiently covered by the "society" requirements.

i agree with you, also, i had said that RL animals should not qualify to even be proposed by the comitee, but i aknowledge it will maybe difficult to define in NS the equivalent of RL animals

A simple assessment on these criteria should demonstrate the non-sapience of cows, monkeys, etc. We don't need any separate exclusions.

I would like to point something out, like I said in my previous statements, they may be like us, have our emotions, our intellect and be exact replicas of us, but no matter what a sapient has in common with us, It still isn't us. If anything, why not let sapient nations create their own UN equivalent, then let us create a true internation, interspecies organisation. The UN only seems to apply to us, when sapients are polluting and wasting, we are recycling. If you give them our rights, then you must give them our restrictions and not exempt them from anything, otherwise, let them sort their own trouble out.

I believe in a same-time policy. We will respect them when hey respect us, and when we respect them, they will instantaneously be respecting us, but when they don't respect us, we won't respect them, we will be hostile when they are, I believe they either speak up now and tell us what they want, or we should just shut up and forget this all because they cannot defend themselves.
optischer

There are already non-human sapients in the UN, some of them in nations without humans, some of them in mixed populations. Many UN nations with non-human citizens choose to give them the same rights as humans, but others don't. This isn't a case of non-humans only now coming to the UN and asking to be let in - they've been here all along. Many of those speaking on these forums are representing their non-human citizens.

I reckon it's sufficiently covered by the "society" requirements.

ok thanks

A simple assessment on these criteria should demonstrate the non-sapience of cows, monkeys, etc. We don't need any separate exclusions.

Pazu-Lenny agreed with the esteemed ambassador from _Myopia_, and answered happily:

"That's great, so, let's create the comittee, we will have fun":)

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..

This sounds interesting and exhaustive, but isn't there some redundancy in the description? It seems to me that eg the following points overlap:

- Point a.i and b: Maybe the word communicate in a.i is not an essential part of "thought" and so should be left for b.

- Points a.iii/iv and c: The phrase "and act accordingly" on point a.iii, and eventually the same phrase added to point a.iv, would make c ommitable. Alternatively, one would want to separate the ability to act inteligently from pure information processing, and remove "act accordingly" altogether from point a.

I think the clearest description would condense information gathering & processing only in point a, the ability to transmit that information in point b, and the capacity of acting on the information on point c (although that one might be assumed unstated from information processing).

I am not sure I agree with the social behaviour being as important as the other factors, I can easily conceive "intelligent loners," more than the absence of other characteristics. But I guess this is covered in the "four out of five" rule.

Finally, I am worried about the possibility of the last generation computers in our nation being considered sapient by these criteria. While they clearly do not satisfy point e, their ability to satisfy c would be open to debate, and all the other points would arguably be satisfied. I would suggest an additional point related to "self awareness" - the ability to recognise oneself as an independent individual, and to take measures of self-protection (or something in that direction) - to prevent such ambiguities.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland
(as advised by The Fonzoland Public Universities Comittee)

i find this fascinating.

if a creature can satisfy 4 out of 5 of those points then lets treat them as sapient. however they will have to play to the same UN rules as we have to do.

if they can be excepted from any part of UN life then this draft proposal is worthless.

Pazu-Lenny agreed with the esteemed ambassador from _Myopia_, and answered happily:

"That's great, so, let's create the comittee, we will have fun":)

OOC: It could definitely make for good role-play, if I had the time to get involved

IC: Of course, we have to pass the resolution first.

- Point a.i and b: Maybe the word communicate in a.i is not an essential part of "thought" and so should be left for b.

Well, I would alter b to require a certain level of language complexity. A only requires communication of ideas because otherwise we can't be sure that they're actually having these ideas.

- Points a.iii/iv and c: The phrase "and act accordingly" on point a.iii, and eventually the same phrase added to point a.iv, would make c ommitable. Alternatively, one would want to separate the ability to act inteligently from pure information processing, and remove "act accordingly" altogether from point a.

Criterion A is supposed to be about thought on an individual level, whereas I think C is meant to be about adaptability of the species (OOC: e.g. humans evolved in Africa, but we have adapted through technology and behaviour to survive in all kinds of environments around the world). Maybe it could be better worded to reflect this. "Act accordingly" could be removed from point A, this might be a good idea.

Finally, I am worried about the possibility of the last generation computers in our nation being considered sapient by these criteria.

Perhaps this might be a correct assessment. You may have inadvertantly created something which deserves to be recognised as a person.

While they clearly do not satisfy point e

I wouldn't be so sure - have you considered the nature of the interconnections between your computers?

their ability to satisfy c would be open to debate

I reckon point C needs to be more detailed, to talk about changing resources and environmental conditions. Without the help of their users, could your computers adapt themselves if their electricity supplies changed, or could they protect their hardware if the environment around it changed so that, without adaptation, they wouldn't be able to continue functioning?

and all the other points would arguably be satisfied.

I don't know about that:

a [THOUGHT] The ability to

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

Presumably they can do mathematical operations, but are they aware of the abstract concepts behind it?

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

Can they design and create their own new hardware?

Finally, if the communication requirement was changed to require languages to reach a certain level of complexity before qualifying, computers might not attain this.

I would suggest an additional point related to "self awareness" - the ability to recognise oneself as an independent individual, and to take measures of self-protection (or something in that direction) - to prevent such ambiguities.

I wouldn't require selfishness, but the first half of that might be a good idea.

We need to include some definition of what consitutes an individual entity for the purposes of rights and freedoms (this won't always be a single physical entity, for instance in the cases where intelligent beings arise as hive minds or computer networks), so the need to recognise oneself as an individual might be included within that.

Another thing we need to define are groups. For organics, this is easier, as they are species (though there are issues with genetically engineered members of species - should they be considered separately, as their abilities might far exceed those of the unaltered members of the species? We need to define a species, which is something even scientists have great trouble agreeing on), but artificial intelligences are harder to deal with. I reckon we need to consider models of identically constructed and programmed AIs as analogous to species.

if a creature can satisfy 4 out of 5 of those points then lets treat them as sapient. however they will have to play to the same UN rules as we have to do.

if they can be excepted from any part of UN life then this draft proposal is worthless.

The idea would be to make all UN resolutions apply equally to sapients, except those with age limits (for which the committees would determine appropriate equivalent ages), and those which explicitly state otherwise.

Perhaps this might be a correct assessment. You may have inadvertantly created something which deserves to be recognised as a person.

We humbly recognize that our technology is not advanced enough for this to be reasonable.

I wouldn't be so sure - have you considered the nature of the interconnections between your computers?

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..

The interconnections mentioned in points i and ii are created by humans. Our computers are not able to independently "engage in social intercourse" or "form social groups," etc., without being specifically instructed to do so. As for point iii, tolerance is not a characteristic I would associate with computers.

I reckon point C needs to be more detailed, to talk about changing resources and environmental conditions. Without the help of their users, could your computers adapt themselves if their electricity supplies changed, or could they protect their hardware if the environment around it changed so that, without adaptation, they wouldn't be able to continue functioning?

I agree with you, but this is largely a matter of scale. Most human societies would also be wiped out if the oxygen supply was exhausted, if the sun went nova, or if dihydrogen monoxide use was banned, as recently proposed. On the other hand, computers can be argued to adapt to minor changes in power supply, or more relevantly, to changes in their functional purpose. I think one could easily turn this point either way to support an argument.

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

Presumably they can do mathematical operations, but are they aware of the abstract concepts behind it?

Remember your previous argument about communication, which seems valid:

A only requires communication of ideas because otherwise we can't be sure that they're actually having these ideas.

Take for granted that a computer is able to process statements about abstract concepts, generate new concepts, and present them to other entities. The problem of awareness might then be both unverifiable and ill-posed. In other words, we can only measure their "understanding" of a concept by the way they react to it.

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

Can they design and create their own new hardware?

Hardware is a specific kind of tool, but tools are undefined. A computer able to generate new software, by genetic algorithms or the sort, could be argued to be enhancing his own natural abilities. Whether this is a "tool" or just skills acquisition would be ambiguous.

Finally, if the communication requirement was changed to require languages to reach a certain level of complexity before qualifying, computers might not attain this.

I would worry then about excluding other sentient beings who also fail to reach that level. Unless carefully worded, this would be extremely subjective, and would even allow us to regard some writers of UN proposals as non-sentient. (Which might not be such a bad idea... ignore my objection here. ;))

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland
(as advised by The Fonzoland Public Universities Comittee)

*The Fonzoland Public Universities Comittee jointly retires to a sanatorium, after excessive mindtwisting while debating this issue*

Yeah, commmittes! Committes are a good thing in this UN, we need more of them. The more committes we have the better!

We humbly recognize that our technology is not advanced enough for this to be reasonable.





The interconnections mentioned in points i and ii are created by humans. Our computers are not able to independently "engage in social intercourse" or "form social groups," etc., without being specifically instructed to do so. As for point iii, tolerance is not a characteristic I would associate with computers.

Ok, then they don't qualify.

I agree with you, but this is largely a matter of scale. Most human societies would also be wiped out if the oxygen supply was exhausted, if the sun went nova, or if dihydrogen monoxide use was banned, as recently proposed. On the other hand, computers can be argued to adapt to minor changes in power supply, or more relevantly, to changes in their functional purpose. I think one could easily turn this point either way to support an argument.

Can your computers choose to adapt their behaviour in order to continue in power fluctuations? Is it an automatic response built into the hardware? And changes to functional purpose usually have to be programmed, unless it's a learning AI, which is a step further towards sapience anyway. This point probably does need more detail but the principle is sound.

Take for granted that a computer is able to process statements about abstract concepts, generate new concepts, and present them to other entities. The problem of awareness might then be both unverifiable and ill-posed. In other words, we can only measure their "understanding" of a concept by the way they react to it.

Hmm. I guess the criterion needs further definition. Perhaps it needs to show evidence of original (not necessarily new to us, but not something told to the individual we're talking to), creative thought about abstract ideas?

Hardware is a specific kind of tool, but tools are undefined. A computer able to generate new software, by genetic algorithms or the sort, could be argued to be enhancing his own natural abilities. Whether this is a "tool" or just skills acquisition would be ambiguous.

A computer generating its own new software in response to a new problem is analogous to organic sapients devising novel behaviours, so it's not so much a tool (which I would consider a physical object used to augment the basic physical abilities of the body - an AI-equipped robot designing and building its own new components is equivalent to this). I would consider this as evidence supporting fulfilment of requirement C.

Maybe requirements C and D could be merged to simply cover the augmentation of natural abilities in response to novel challenges, via either novel behaviours or tools.

I would worry then about excluding other sentient beings who also fail to reach that level. Unless carefully worded, this would be extremely subjective, and would even allow us to regard some writers of UN proposals as non-sentient. (Which might not be such a bad idea... ignore my objection here. ;))

The level of complexity would be chosen carefully to fit what we considered to be appropriate. But if communication is equivalent to RL monkeys (i.e. a few specific calls, each representing a message like "food here" or "go away") then it shouldn't be considered sufficient to qualify them.

I made some changes to address most of the issues:

a [THOUGHT] The ability to

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

ii learn new concepts from sources including experience,

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

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

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

ii use methods of communication that allow representation of all concepts acquired through "thought", expanding and modifying those methods as needed if novel concepts become available;

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

i the acquisition of new skills or behavioural patterns through "thought",

ii the manipulation or creation of physical tools to enhance the natural abilities of the individual or group;

d [SELF-AWARENESS] The ability to recognise oneself as an independent individual;

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.

What do you think? This would allow Fonzoland to dismiss any "Computer Rights" movement, on the basis of d and e.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

And now here’s yet another revised version of my proposal…

-------------------------------------------

SAPIENT RIGHTS

A proposal to extend the types of beings to whom ‘Human Rights’ legislation should apply.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: St Edmund

Description: National governments shall be required to extend the scope of ‘Human Rights’ laws to cover other sapient life-forms as well as members of the species Homo sapiens.

Argument: The United Nations,
NOTING that none of the UN Resolutions that have been passed so far actually defines the term ‘Human’.
RECOGNISING that some nations’ populations include living beings of various kinds that are verifiably as sapient as normal members of the species Homo sapiens but who are not actually members of that species.
BELIEVING that, species should not be considered a valid basis for unfair discrimination between sapient beings.
NOTING that in some species sapience is only possessed at certain stages in their life-cycles, by certain populations or biological ‘castes’, or even just by occasional individuals.
DEFINES the term ‘Human’ to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens, or of any population which is closely related to that species and shares the same general capabilities.
REQUIRES all member nations to pass laws recognising sapient beings of any species as possessing all of the same basic rights as Humans, as expressed by any earlier UN Resolutions that are still in force, any future UN Resolutions that do not explicitly state otherwise, and all national & sub-national legislation, and to apply such laws with equal justice to all sapient life-forms rather than solely to members of the species Homo sapiens with the following allowed exceptions_
a/ Sapient beings of any types that habitually prey upon other sapient beings do not have to be tolerated or granted any rights.
b/ If a species contains non-sapient beings as well as sapient ones then those non-sapient beings need not be given the same rights as their sapient relatives, although if their continued existence is necessary for the continued existence of that species as a whole then any attempt at exterminating them shall count as attempted genocide.
c/ Some sapient beings may legally recognised individually or by category as incompetent to actively exercise certain rights, due to low intelligence or innate psychological differences from Humans, although they shall retain the benefit of those rights that do not require deliberate actions by them such as protection from enslavement or genocide.
d/ Where differences in some other innate factor such as life-expectancy would make it unfair to apply the precise wording of some ‘Human Rights’ legislation to a type of nonhuman sapient a fair alternative shall be devised for them.
ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Tribunal on Sapience’ [or ‘UNToS’] to resolve any appeals by beings against denials of their recognition as Human or as otherwise Sapient, with the ability to bring & argue such an appeal itself being counted as strong evidence in favour of its accuracy; to determine which beings are legitimately covered by any of the allowed exemptions; to set appropriately proportionate penalties, within the general limits on legal penalties allowed within the nations concerned, for any governments who knowingly withhold such recognition; and to investigate, and if necessary punish, any charges of genocide committed against nonhuman Sapients.


--------------------------------------

That seems to be 3’396 characters, including spaces, which should be far enough within the maximum length allowed for adding a [very concise] definition of sapience as well to be possible…

This time around I’ve gone for giving nonhuman sapient beings “separate but equal” status, rather than calling them “legally Human”, so that details such as differences in natural life-expectancy can be allowed for without contravening various past Resolutions that are still in force. I’ve dropped certain clauses that were essentially duplicated in the early argument and the actual requirements, and tightened up the remaining text a bit. On further consideration the clause about “ the unborn or unhatched young of some sapient species” seemed superfluous too, because the existing Resolutions that mention ‘Abortion Rights’ already make it plain that Human foetuses aren’t protected by ‘Human Rights’ and the clause here about giving other sapient beings rights at comparable levels to Humans would thus allow Abortion to equivalent levels for them anyway. [i](I personally think that the currently-applicable Resolutions go too far in that line, but of course we do have to work within the existing rules…) Oh, and I’ve given ‘UNToS’ a [limited] enforcement role because that seemed necessary: I realise that some governments might object to that point on the grounds that it violates national sovereignty, and I’m fairly keen on ‘NatSov’ myself, but given that the only obvious alternative would be to rely on governments punishing themselves for offences — and the number of examples of governments not doing so that we have from other contexts — I couldn’t see any just alternative to it…

I would suggest that any beings who are capable of thinking that they should possess rights, and of bringing a case to & arguing it before the Tribunal, should meet enough of Myopia's criteria to qualify...

My final draft?

------------------------------------

SAPIENT RIGHTS

A proposal to extend the scope of ‘Human Rights’ legislation.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: St Edmund

Description: National governments shall be required to extend rights to all sapient life-forms rather than just to Humans.

Argument: The United Nations,
NOTING that none of the UN Resolutions that have been passed so far actually defines the term ‘Human’.
RECOGNISING that some nations’ populations include living beings of various kinds that are verifiably as sapient as normal members of the species Homo sapiens but who are not actually members of that species.
BELIEVING that species should not be considered an acceptable basis for unfair discrimination between sapient beings.
NOTING that in some species sapience is only possessed at certain stages in their life-cycles, by certain populations or biological ‘castes’, or even just by occasional individuals.
DEFINES the term ‘Human’ to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens, or of any population which is closely related to that species and that shares the same general capabilities.
DEFINES the term ‘Sapient’ to cover any life-form who is not only self-aware but capable of understanding abstract concepts, such as that of ‘rights’, and of communicating that understanding to others.
REQUIRES all member nations to pass laws recognising all sapient life-forms as possessing the same basic rights as Humans, as defined by any earlier UN Resolutions that are still in force, any future UN Resolutions that do not explicitly state otherwise, and any relevant national or sub-national legislation, and to apply such laws with equal justice to all such life-forms rather than solely to Humans with the following allowed exceptions_
a/ Sapient beings of any types that habitually prey upon other Sapients do not have to be tolerated or granted any rights.
b/ If a species contains both sapient and non-sapient beings then the latter need not be given the same rights as their sapient relatives, although if the continued existence of those non-sapient beings is necessary for the continued existence of that species as a whole then exterminating them shall count as genocide.
c/ Some sapient beings may legally recognised individually or by type as incompetent to exercise certain rights actively, due to low intelligence or innate psychological differences from Humans, although they shall retain the benefit of those rights that do not require deliberate actions by them such as protection from enslavement and from genocide.
d/ Where differences in other innate factors such as life-expectancy would make it unfair to apply the precise wording of some ‘Human Rights’ legislation to any particular type of nonhuman sapient a fairer alternative shall be devised for them.

ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Tribunal on Sapience’ [or ‘UNToS’] to resolve any appeals by beings against denials of their recognition as Human or as otherwise Sapient; to determine which beings are sapient but are legitimately covered by any of the allowed exemptions; to set appropriately proportionate penalties, within the general limits on legal penalties allowed within the nations concerned, for any governments who knowingly withhold such recognition; and to investigate, and if necessary punish, any charges of genocide committed against nonhuman Sapients.
DEFINES ‘Blocking access to UNToS’ and ‘Hindering an UNToS investigation as crimes falling under UNToS jurisdiction.


----------------------------------------------------------------

That seems to be 3’473 characters, including spaces, so just within the maximum length allowed.
I’ve left the category as ‘Human Rights’, although it actually deals with non-humans, because that still seems the most appropriate one: Would any of the Mods care to comment about this point before I actually submit the proposal to the UN?
I’ve defined its strength as ‘Mild’ because although it might actually have stronger effects in some particular nations there are also many nations that [apparently] don’t contain any sapient non-humans at all & that would therefore be unaffected by it so that this seemed the best compromise to me: Again, would any of the Mods care to comment about this point?

The main differences that I can see between Reformentia’s proposal on the same topic and this one are (1) that his/hers has a more thorough definition of Sapients (although, as I’ve already remarked in the relevant thread, I disagree with the way in which he/she uses the term “unique”…) whereas mine goes into more detail about exceptions & enforcement; and (2) that his/hers restricts rights to those types of Sapients who have already actively requested them from the UN — meaning that governments can do whatever they want with any newly-discovered or newly-created types of Sapients, up to & including committing genocide against them, with no need to worry about possible punishment as long as they can keep those beings out of contact with the UN — whereas mine (building on the principle that laws protecting humans’ rights generally cover ALL humans regardless of whether their existence was already recognised by the authorities before their rights were breached) protects ALL Sapients so that anybody dealing with beings who plausibly could be Sapient would find it advisable to act more cautiously unless & until the relevant UN committee determines that this Resolution doesn’t cover those beings...

I made some changes to address most of the issues:

a [THOUGHT] The ability to

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

ii learn new concepts from sources including experience,

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

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

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

ii use methods of communication that allow representation of all concepts acquired through "thought", expanding and modifying those methods as needed if novel concepts become available;

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

i the acquisition of new skills or behavioural patterns through "thought",

ii the manipulation or creation of physical tools to enhance the natural abilities of the individual or group;

d [SELF-AWARENESS] The ability to recognise oneself as an independent individual;

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.

What do you think? This would allow Fonzoland to dismiss any "Computer Rights" movement, on the basis of d and e.

Sincerely,
The Wise Ruler of The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland

Sorry about the massive delay, I've been very busy. Interesting ideas, but I've been persuaded that this approach cannot work unless the criteria are in some way made objective. This is going to mean finding for each, either a clear black-and-white binary test, or some method of objectively quantifying the quality and defining a threshold. I'm going to work on this when I have time, if (as I hope) Reformentia's approach based on simply asking for rights doesn't pass, and nor does this proposal, which appears to be pretty vague and thus grants massive power to the UNToS it creates.

Sorry about the massive delay, I've been very busy. Interesting ideas, but I've been persuaded that this approach cannot work unless the criteria are in some way made objective. This is going to mean finding for each, either a clear black-and-white binary test, or some method of objectively quantifying the quality and defining a threshold. I'm going to work on this when I have time, if (as I hope) Reformentia's approach based on simply asking for rights doesn't pass, and nor does this proposal, which appears to be pretty vague and thus grants massive power to the UNToS it creates.


I know, I know, but fitting a really "complete" proposal into the limited space allowed just doesn't look possible to me. :-(
As for the level of powers granted to UNToS, aren't all new committees that get created by resolutions nowadays supposed to be composed of infallible & incorruptible [Gnomish?] experts rather than just politicians so that at least it should use those powers properly...

Sorry about the massive delay, I've been very busy. Interesting ideas, but I've been persuaded that this approach cannot work unless the criteria are in some way made objective. This is going to mean finding for each, either a clear black-and-white binary test, or some method of objectively quantifying the quality and defining a threshold. I'm going to work on this when I have time, if (as I hope) Reformentia's approach based on simply asking for rights doesn't pass, and nor does this proposal, which appears to be pretty vague and thus grants massive power to the UNToS it creates.

Yeah. I can actually sympathise with their point, of a less detailed approach working better. But I still find the definition issue interesting, if only as an intelectual challenge. Anyway, if one of their proposals passes, there have been precedents allowing you to create a "Definition of sapience" resolution. Or have those been illegalised?

I must say I was surprised to come into the UN today and find so much work being put forward on a resolution such as this. And to think I was about to start up a dicussion on just this topic!

Looking through the proposals, I can honestly say I prefer St Edmond's at this point. The other one makes a good effort but makes it to easy for those who wish to discriminate to twist the rules to their own uses easily while having a pannel that can react to abuses is much more prepaired to curbed these instances provided they have the lattitude needed and are not kept back by official rules. It would also help if the committie was indeed stacked with those wishing to reasonably define sentience.

So, as one of the nations in these United Nations made almost entirely of non-humans, I do endorse St. Edomond's proposed resolution. The Union of Tinis is indeed glad that there are others out there who understand the plight of us non-humans and wish to secure the blessings of liberty for us as they have been for the rest of the UN.

Yeah. I can actually sympathise with their point, of a less detailed approach working better. But I still find the definition issue interesting, if only as an intelectual challenge. Anyway, if one of their proposals passes, there have been precedents allowing you to create a "Definition of sapience" resolution. Or have those been illegalised?

With Reformentia's proposal, a Definition of Sapience would be illegal, as it would be an amendment (his def. is simply, anything that can convincingly ask for rights). With this one, I reckon I'd be slapped down on a House of Cards violation.

I know, I know, but fitting a really "complete" proposal into the limited space allowed just doesn't look possible to me.

It may not be. I'm interested in trying, and if/when I ever have serious amounts of time for it, I'm going to try it.

As for the level of powers granted to UNToS, aren't all new committees that get created by resolutions nowadays supposed to be composed of infallible & incorruptible [Gnomish?] experts rather than just politicians so that at least it should use those powers properly...

Well, yeah, but first that seems like somewhat shoddy role-play to me. They're magical beings from a gameplay perspective, so that we nations don't have to staff them - but from an IC role-playing perspective, I would like to be a little more realistic. Also, their use of powers might be perfectly ethical, but they still might make decisions I completely disagree with. If power is to be handed to a committee I'd prefer that they are given more specific rules against which they have to make their assessments (it's like the judicial system, most nations don't just say to the court system, "find bad people and punish them", we say "this is the law, decide if these people have broken it, and if so take action according to this other law").

This type of resolution brings into a play a significant number of philosophical questions which may be outside the bounds of the UN to decide.

I understand that the crux of such a piece of legislation would be to protect those sentient non-humans who exist in our world.

However, one question that should be addressed in this debate would be the question of sentient, or self-aware, machines. This is an issue that will probably need to be addressed at some point if a resolution of this type would come to pass.

As our first official act within the U.N., we shall state that we define sentient as 'any creature that wears a hat'.

We'll have to work out something about AI's, but... Oh, just a second, the Bighat wants to say something...

*noises as the phone changes hands*

"Gnomes are real?!'

Although I am in full support of the intentions of this proposal, and congratulate the authors on the massive effort devoted to the question, a comparative analysis leads me to slightly favour Reformentia's approach.

That proposal is currently waiting for quorum and has my support. As such, I will temporarily withdraw from this debate, and return only if said proposal fails.

Well, yeah, but first that seems like somewhat shoddy role-play to me. They're magical beings from a gameplay perspective, so that we nations don't have to staff them - but from an IC role-playing perspective, I would like to be a little more realistic.

Presumably you don't believe in the fleets of helicopters that move nations between regions, either? ;-)

Okay, fair comment.