NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the issue of non human sapients and what rights they should be entitled to pops up here now and again I've taken a shot at drafting a proposal to deal with the issue. Rather than right a small book defining all the finer details of exactly what constitutes sapience and all the terribly complex and complicated ways we're going to determine if these various properties are present in any given species and thenspending the next 20 pages of the thread arguing those fine details I think just simplifying the entire question is the better approach. So:
============================================
Rights of Biological Sapients

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

RECOGNIZING the anthropocentric tendencies of UN legislation.

ACKNOWLEDGING the possibility of the existence of non-human sapient life worthy of being granted the rights and freedoms humans enjoy.

REGRETTING the difficulty in establishing an objective direct measure of the possession of sapience.

CONVINCED that some clearly identifiable criteria for granting such rights and freedoms must be established.

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

DECLARES that should these rights and freedoms be granted to the requesting species that species will also be subject to the restrictions contained in UN law except where they too are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

REQUIRES that if any genetic or technological modifications or augmentations are required to communicate this request they be performed by the members of the species in question if the entire species is to qualify for those rights and freedoms. If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves.

FURTHER REQUIRES that if a request is made by any UN member that a species be thus evaluated for sapience that contact between that species and the UN shall not be prevented by any member nation.

DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed by this resolution and open to separate consideration.
====================================================

To answer a couple of the inevitable questions:

1. Why this test for sapience? Because it's easy to perform. Because it's difficult to misinterpret the results. Because successfully completing it displays the possession of self awareness, a significant level of intelligence, and the ability to meaningfully communicate with other sapients which should just about cover anything I would consider necessary to grant a species human rights.

2. Yes, this does exclude AI. It does this because I consider the determination of whether an AI actually possesses sapience to be a more difficult thing to accomplish and I didn't want to deal with it here. It does not do this because I want to deny legitimately sapient AI's rights, and so the resolution makes it explicit that the question of AI rights is simply being left open for seperate consideration. Anyone will still be free to draft an AI rights proposal without worrying about any duplication issues with this one.

Thoughts? There is a draft of this drifting through the proposal list right now but I'm not really pushing for it at the moment, more just sending it through on a trial run in advance of a more serious attempt to get it to quorum later. Possibly with some modifications depending on what kind of feedback I see here.

That's basically the definition that I was aiming at in the last draft of my own proposal, but you've expressed it rather more eloquently. ;-)
There are some points that I covered which you haven't yet (e.g. the exclusion from rights of any life-forms that prey on other sapients, as some other nations requested; recognition that some life-forms might be sapient but incompetent to exercise rights or maybe even to request them; possibility of recognising extinct species as sapient & their extermination therefore as genocide), however. Would you care to work together with me on this, instead of each of us producing a separate proposal?

That's basically the definition that I was aiming at in the last draft of my own proposal, but you've expressed it rather more eloquently. ;-)
There are some points that I covered which you haven't yet (e.g. the exclusion from rights of any life-forms that prey on other sapients, as some other nations requested;

I wouldn't really see the point. There are no currently existing UN resolutions that, if applied to such a species, would seem to legally permit them to prey on other sentient species. At least not that I'm aware of... and as such whether they possess human rights or not the act of preying on another species could be considered either homicide on an individual basis, or an act of war/genocide on a larger scale, and dealt with as such in either case without requiring any special considerations in this proposal.

recognition that some life-forms might be sapient but incompetent to exercise rights

If this is a result of their unique biological characteristics, which it would seem would have to be the case, the final clause should cover it.

or maybe even to request them;

If they aren't capable of even requesting them then I don't think we should be giving them in the first place honestly.

possibility of recognising extinct species as sapient & their extermination therefore as genocide),

And what would we do about it? If they weren't already classified as sapient at the time of their extermination the only way to prosecute such a genocide would be by an ex post facto definition of the species as being protected as sapient beings at the time of their extermination... which most legal systems forbid. You can't prosecute someone for committing a crime that wasn't defined to be a crime until after they committed it.

And what would we do about it? If they weren't already classified as sapient at the time of their extermination the only way to prosecute such a genocide would be by an ex post facto definition of the species as being protected as sapient beings at the time of their extermination... which most legal systems forbid. You can't prosecute someone for committing a crime that wasn't defined to be a crime until after they committed it.
Agreed. Retroactive legislation shouldn't happen.

I wouldn't really see the point. There are no currently existing UN resolutions that, if applied to such a species, would seem to legally permit them to prey on other sentient species. At least not that I'm aware of... and as such whether they possess human rights or not the act of preying on another species could be considered either homicide on an individual basis, or an act of war/genocide on a larger scale, and dealt with as such in either case without requiring any special considerations in this proposal. If this is a result of their unique biological characteristics, which it would seem would have to be the case, the final clause should cover it.

When I started a thread on this topic there were one or two nations who wanted the option of denying rights to such species. If there are several such species then how "unique" is that biological characteristic?

If they aren't capable of even requesting them then I don't think we should be giving them in the first place honestly.

I was thinking about the possibility of species that might have relatively low [average] intelligence values by human standards but still show all the other signs of sapience, such as perhaps some "primitive" species of [prehistoric] hominids.

And what would we do about it? If they weren't already classified as sapient at the time of their extermination the only way to prosecute such a genocide would be by an ex post facto definition of the species as being protected as sapient beings at the time of their extermination... which most legal systems forbid. You can't prosecute someone for committing a crime that wasn't defined to be a crime until after they committed it.

I don't like retroactive legislation either. If it could be proven that the government concerned was genuinely innocent of the possibility of sapience in the beings eliminated then I'd agree about not punishing them for it on the basis of a later decision about that species' status, but if a Resolution [or clause of a Resolution] forbidding the genocide of nonhuman sapients was already in place before the killings occurred and it could be proven that the government responsible for those killings had good reason to suspect that the beings in question were sapient before it ordered that action then I don't see that this would be a retroactive ruling...

DECLARES that henceforth if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them, as well as demonstrating a coherent understanding of what this request entails under cross examination, they shall be assumed to be entirely qualified to have their request granted and shall be considered by the UN to be equal to humans under the law as pertains to any question of civil or political rights or freedoms, except where the granting of such rights or freedoms is incompatible with the unique biological characteristics of the species in question. The rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed and open to separate consideration.

Omg, my brain hurts... maybe you want to break this down a bit more, six line sentences might be too much even for this enlightened and wise Assembly.
Anyway, I would add somewhere that this request entails also obligations imposed by UN resolutions, not just rights and freedoms.

REQUIRES that if any genetic or technological modifications or augmentations are required to communicate this request they be performed by the members of the species in question if the entire species is to qualify for those rights and freedoms. If any member of a species is genetically or technologically augmented by a member of a different species that individual or individuals shall be considered a distinct species of their own under the law, qualifying for the rights and freedoms requested but only securing them for themselves.

Hmmmm, I think this might be interpreted as encouraging genetic manipulation of non-humans, albeit self-inflicted. Why would genetic manipulation be required for communication?

This is certainly a novel and, we think, quite valid approach to ensuring that sapient, non-human beings are accorded the rights they deserve. Ausserland supports the proposal and we look forward to voting for it when it reaches the floor.

We do, however, concur with the distinguished representative of Fonzoland that the "DECLARES..." clause is difficult to understand. We'll try to provide a suggestion or two for making it more readable. Before we do, though....

We're puzzled by the portion that reads: "except where the granting of such rights or freedoms is incompatible with the unique biological characteristics of the species in question". We're not objecting to it; we simply don't understand it. We'd appreciate an explanation from the distinguished representative of Reformentia.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is certainly a novel and, we think, quite valid approach to ensuring that sapient, non-human beings are accorded the rights they deserve. Ausserland supports the proposal and we look forward to voting for it when it reaches the floor.

We do, however, concur with the distinguished representative of Fonzoland that the "DECLARES..." clause is difficult to understand. We'll try to provide a suggestion or two for making it more readable. Before we do, though....

We're puzzled by the portion that reads: "except where the granting of such rights or freedoms is incompatible with the unique biological characteristics of the species in question". We're not objecting to it; we simply don't understand it. We'd appreciate an explanation from the distinguished representative of Reformentia.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I suggest it means that, for instance, you wouldn't need to protect a beings right to an abortion if they laid eggs instead of having live births.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

W.

When I started a thread on this topic there were one or two nations who wanted the option of denying rights to such species.

Yes, there are pretty much always nations that want provisions that make little sense included in legislation.

If there are several such species then how "unique" is that biological characteristic?

I wasn't aware the proposal established a minimum level of 'uniqueness' for that clause to take effect.

I was thinking about the possibility of species that might have relatively low [average] intelligence values by human standards but still show all the other signs of sapience, such as perhaps some "primitive" species of [prehistoric] hominids.

If they're of such low intelligence that they can't even make a simple request for the rights we're proposing to grant them while understanding what it means I wouldn't consider them worthy of human rights.

I don't like retroactive legislation either. If it could be proven that the government concerned was genuinely innocent of the possibility of sapience in the beings eliminated then I'd agree about not punishing them for it on the basis of a later decision about that species' status, but if a Resolution [or clause of a Resolution] forbidding the genocide of nonhuman sapients was already in place before the killings occurred and it could be proven that the government responsible for those killings had good reason to suspect that the beings in question were sapient before it ordered that action then I don't see that this would be a retroactive ruling...

Of course it would be. If the species in question isn't legally defined as sapient at the time they are wiped out then you can't retroactively define them as sapient later and then just declare "Well, you just should have known we were going to do that... so this isn't really retroactive."

Omg, my brain hurts... maybe you want to break this down a bit more, six line sentences might be too much even for this enlightened and wise Assembly.
Anyway, I would add somewhere that this request entails also obligations imposed by UN resolutions, not just rights and freedoms.


I'll consider reworking the clause when I resubmit.

Hmmmm, I think this might be interpreted as encouraging genetic manipulation of non-humans, albeit self-inflicted. Why would genetic manipulation be required for communication?

Who knows, any one of a number of potential reasons that they can't just communicate with us normally and which they decide to address through such manipulation. Maybe they're all telepathic but can't tap into our mental 'frequency' so they decide to engineer a diplomatic caste that have vocal cords. Personally I'd do it with technology instead but if they want to do it another way I'm certainly not going to say that disqualifies them for human rights. It's their call.

I suggest it means that, for instance, you wouldn't need to protect a beings right to an abortion if they laid eggs instead of having live births.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not. Another prominent one was "free education" up to the age of 18 for species whose entire lifespans might be shorter than this.

Yes, there are pretty much always nations that want provisions that make little sense included in legislation.

They had a problem with dragons and vampires, if I remember correctly.
I'll point out that your suggestions about treating those species' actions as either homicide or acts of war wouldn't allow for refusing entry visas to members of a species on precautionary grounds...

I wasn't aware the proposal established a minimum level of 'uniqueness' for that clause to take effect.

'Uniqueness' doesn't have levels, either something is unique or it isn't...

If they're of such low intelligence that they can't even make a simple request for the rights we're proposing to grant them while understanding what it means I wouldn't consider them worthy of human rights.

I was in a hurry when I wrote that comment: If you look at my own draft proposal you'll see that I allowed for such species to be declared sapient but 'legally incompetant' which would deny them any rights requiring actions on their part (such as the right to vote) but leave them with the "passive" rights such as protection from enslavement or genocide...

Of course it would be. If the species in question isn't legally defined as sapient at the time they are wiped out then you can't retroactively define them as sapient later and then just declare "Well, you just should have known we were going to do that... so this isn't really retroactive."

Shouldn't that depend on just how obviously sapient that species was? You seem to be saying that even if a government knowingly commits genocide against a species which they can plainly see is sapient the fact that taht species hadn't managed to make a formal application to the UN for recognition beforehand means that the government gets away with it... By analogy, killing a newborn baby counts as murder even if that baby's birth hasn't yet been officially registered...

Call me a negative nelly, but how often are we really coming into contact with other sentient species? Is this a problem that need be addressed now?

Call me a negative nelly, but how often are we really coming into contact with other sentient species? Is this a problem that need be addressed now?

Some nations RP as FT. For them, they may not just be coming into contact with non-human sapient species, but may actually be non-human sapient species. Besides, this looks to me like an interesting debate; not one I'm qualified to engage, but one I shall be watching with interest.

Call me a negative nelly, but how often are we really coming into contact with other sentient species? Is this a problem that need be addressed now?

It is not polite to insult the gnomes.

Call me a negative nelly, but how often are we really coming into contact with other sentient species? Is this a problem that need be addressed now?
Further on what Gruenberg said, there asre also nations that RP in MagiTek (dungeons and dragons, etc). So they may have elven kingdoms, or dwarven mines. And you really don't want to be pissing off the Great Wyrms by denying them rights.

Call me a negative nelly, but how often are we really coming into contact with other sentient species? Is this a problem that need be addressed now?

Our people believe that Our national animal, the sanrio kitten, is not only sentient but possesses an intellect far superior to their own. So far as We know, however, they haven't asked for a request for the "rights and freedoms" mentioned in this proposal. Indeed, We are not sure they even consider humans sentient and thus capable of granting any kind of "rights and freedoms" that would be meaningful to them.

It is our considered opinion that extrahuman (is that a word, because we just made it up if it's not?) biological sapients govern their own societies and thus are decidedly outside the purview of human affairs, so extending "human rights" to them is unnecessary. We view the United Nations as an instrument of human governance, while other, sapient species thrive under systems of governance that work for them.

In the case of member nations that are governed by extrahuman species, we hold that they are entirely within their right to rule that UN human rights legislation also applies to their citizens, and thus enforce such dictates as though they were crafted for their own species. However, in the case of nations governed by humans (or even in the case of extrahuman majorities governing human or other extrahuman minorities), we would prefer that relevant UN legislation -- rather than imposing on sapient minorities a series of rights tailored for humans -- instead instruct governments to grant sapient communities due autonomy to establish and live under their own laws and systems of governance.

We believe such a measure would be most agreeable to all parties where the issue of "sapient rights" is concerned.

That said, we have endorsed this proposal.

It is our considered opinion that extrahuman (is that a word, because we just made it up if it's not?) biological sapients govern their own societies and thus are decidedly outside the purview of human affairs, so extending "human rights" to them is unnecessary. We view the United Nations as an instrument of human governance, while other, sapient species thrive under systems of governance that work for them.

In the case of member nations that are governed by extrahuman species, we hold that they are entirely within their right to rule that UN human rights legislation also applies to their citizens, and thus enforce such dictates as though they were crafted for their own species. However, in the case of nations governed by humans (or even in the case of extrahuman majorities governing human or other extrahuman minorities), we would prefer that relevant UN legislation -- rather than imposing on sapient minorities a series of rights tailored for humans -- instead instruct governments to grant sapient communities due autonomy to establish and live under their own laws and systems of governance.

We believe such a measure would be most agreeable to all parties where the issue of "sapient rights" is concerned.

That said, we have endorsed this proposal.

I would agree with such an argument, but it is a well known fact that the human concept of sovereignity tends to be territorial, rather than social. In other words, any alternate society inhabiting what we would recognise as a "human nation" would be immediately considered subject to the corresponding human law. Therefore, I would argue that their rights, freedoms, and obligations are still within the scope of the UN.

Well, obviously, that wasn't a full proposal, but rather a vague idea for one; such details would have to worked out when and if such a proposal is drafted. We do have concerns about instituting rights systems tailored for humans upon non-human species, and thus prefer that sapient communities draft their own rights legislation. And the proposal guaranteeing their right to do so, we feel, would fall under "The Furtherment of Democracy," rather than "Human Rights," as legislating the rights of non-humans is obviously not a "human rights" issue.

At this point in the discussion, we would be interested in knowing just what entities some of the speakers on this subject are referring to when they talk about non-human or (to use the excellent term invented by the distinguished representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny) extrahuman sapient species. It would make it easier for us to respond to some of their comments.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thanks to all for the response. I knew there were some who RPed other settings, but did not recognize their significance in the NS community. Well then, carry on.

As promised, we have tried to rework the first operative clause of the proposal to enhance its readability.

Original text:

DECLARES that henceforth if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them, as well as demonstrating a coherent understanding of what this request entails under cross examination, they shall be assumed to be entirely qualified to have their request granted and shall be considered by the UN to be equal to humans under the law as pertains to any question of civil or political rights or freedoms, except where the granting of such rights or freedoms is incompatible with the unique biological characteristics of the species in question. The rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed and open to separate consideration.

Our suggested revision:

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

The rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed and open to separate consideration.

We recommend that the sentence beginning "The rights and freedoms..." be placed at the end of the proposal's text.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

As promised, we have tried to rework the first operative clause of the proposal to enhance its readability.

Original text:

DECLARES that henceforth if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them, as well as demonstrating a coherent understanding of what this request entails under cross examination, they shall be assumed to be entirely qualified to have their request granted and shall be considered by the UN to be equal to humans under the law as pertains to any question of civil or political rights or freedoms, except where the granting of such rights or freedoms is incompatible with the unique biological characteristics of the species in question. The rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed and open to separate consideration.

Our suggested revision:

DECLARES that, if any biological species or member thereof demonstrates the capacity to issue a request to the UN, of their own volition, that the rights and freedoms granted to human beings be extended to them and demonstrates a coherent understanding of the request under cross examination, they shall be considered to be equal to humans under the law with regard to those rights and freedoms. This shall not apply when such rights or freedoms are inappropriate to the biological characteristics of the species.

The rights and freedoms of non biological life forms shall be left unaddressed and open to separate consideration.

We recommend that the sentence beginning "The rights and freedoms..." be placed at the end of the proposal's text.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I like it, consider it done.

At this point in the discussion, we would be interested in knowing just what entities some of the speakers on this subject are referring to when they talk about non-human or (to use the excellent term invented by the distinguished representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny) extrahuman sapient species. It would make it easier for us to respond to some of their comments.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Some of the species I've encountered in NS during my extended time here include:

Sentient ants, vampires, werewolves, Borg (somewhat human), Vulcans, Klingons, various other aliens, a race of wizards, dwarves, elves, mer-people, orgers, ogers, ents, bird-people...that's all I can think of right now. But there are many non-human species around here.

Not all countries RP having strange species, my country just has humans. As well, whether the countries want to give rights to these species in the case that they do RP having them, is that country's decision. Some people like having oppressive governments, such federal level issues among many other the UN have passed is oppressive to our right of national sovereignty.

Not all countries RP having strange species, my country just has humans. As well, whether the countries want to give rights to these species in the case that they do RP having them, is that country's decision. Some people like having oppressive governments, such federal level issues among many other the UN have passed is oppressive to our right of national sovereignty.


This wouldn't require you to RP having any such peoples as actual natives in your nation, or to give any who are native any more rights than you give your human residents, it would just oblige you to treat any of them who did live there or who came visiting as fairly as you would human residents or visitors...

Some of the species I've encountered in NS during my extended time here include:

Sentient ants, vampires, werewolves, Borg (somewhat human), Vulcans, Klingons, various other aliens, a race of wizards, dwarves, elves, mer-people, orgers, ogers, ents, bird-people...that's all I can think of right now. But there are many non-human species around here.


I've also seen Gnomes [of course], Nekomini (anime-style Catgirls) and at least one other species of CatPeople, and at least one population of sapient (albeit "bloodthirsty") Dolphins... and apparently NS has 'Middle-Earth' and 'Narnia' regions, so there are probably some more species there (such as Hobbitses?) as well...

This wouldn't require you to RP having any such peoples as actual natives in your nation, or to give any who are native any more rights than you give your human residents, it would just oblige you to treat any of them who did live there or who came visiting as fairly as you would human residents or visitors...

Still isn't something the UN should be talking about, some people like to RP oppressive governments. I personally don't, but there are a considerable amount of people who do, it's not the obligation of the UN to tell people how to manage their countries.

Still isn't something the UN should be talking about, some people like to RP oppressive governments. I personally don't, but there are a considerable amount of people who do, it's not the obligation of the UN to tell people how to manage their countries.

It's not the obligation of the UN to do anything. It is, however, the right of UN legislators to be able to tell people to do almost anything.

Some of the species I've encountered in NS during my extended time here include:

Sentient ants, vampires, werewolves, Borg (somewhat human), Vulcans, Klingons, various other aliens, a race of wizards, dwarves, elves, mer-people, orgers, ogers, ents, bird-people...that's all I can think of right now. But there are many non-human species around here.

What is this "race of wizards" you speak of? Sounds somewhat similar to my nation's not-really-human-but-most-of-the-time-we-look-human race of Etherials.

Also, being a nation of non-humans (although you wouldn't know it to look at us 95% of the time), I would support this proposal if two things didn't come to mind:

1) This sounds completely unnecessary, and 2) it's kind of confusing to read, therefore I'm not really sure what all it means to do.

Anyone want to put this thing in layman's terms for me? Ordinarily, I'd be able to understand this, but today just isn't my day for some reason...

What is this "race of wizards" you speak of? Sounds somewhat similar to my nation's not-really-human-but-most-of-the-time-we-look-human race of Etherials.

Also, being a nation of non-humans (although you wouldn't know it to look at us 95% of the time), I would support this proposal if two things didn't come to mind:

1) This sounds completely unnecessary,

Only if you don't mind your Etherials having basically none of the rights and freedoms of humans under international law. Currently they don't.

and 2) it's kind of confusing to read, therefore I'm not really sure what all it means to do.

It seems fairly straightworward to me. If your species can pass the test for sapience they're entitled to all the same rights and freedoms under UN law as humans are.

Sufficiently laymany... laymanesque... ?

Still isn't something the UN should be talking about, some people like to RP oppressive governments. I personally don't, but there are a considerable amount of people who do, it's not the obligation of the UN to tell people how to manage their countries.

We take note of the preference for some governments to be oppressive, and proceed to wonder what it is the representative from Schnelle Kuh thought the UN Humans Rights category was for if not for dealing with governments with those exact tendencies?

Ok, comments seem to be tapering off. The current version of the draft in the first post will likely be submitted tomorrow with a serious attempt to get it to quorum this time.