NationStates Jolt Archive

Recognition of Sapient Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: NOTING with approval efforts to repeal past United Nations resolutions that have been made obsolete by newer legislation and changing circumstance, and yet

CONCERNED that this has led to a tendency to use the risk of extinction as the only test of whether or not a species is worthy of protection, and

AWARE of the multitude of sapient non-human species known to science, and

DESIROUS of ensuring fair and equal treatment among these many sapient species,

WE THE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

DECLARE all sapient species to be deserving of equal protection under the law,

REQUIRE all Member nations to extend to any sapient species all legal rights and protections which are currently extended to any sapient species under their law,

INVALIDATE any and all national laws denying equal protection under the law to any sapient species,

FORBID the passage by Members of future legislation denying equal protection under their law to any sapient species,

PERMIT Member nations to restrict citizenship to certain sapient species, but

FORBID Member nations from discriminating under their law among resident non-citizens of different sentient species merely on a basis of species affiliation.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION, WE ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING TESTS OF SAPIENCE:

I. If a sovereign state, whether a Member or not, recognizes a species as eligible for citizenship, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

II. If consensus opinion among scientists worldwide, as expressed in formal opinions issued by scientific organizations of global standing competent to render such a judgment, holds a species to be sapient, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

III. If the United Nations issues a resolution declaring a particular species sapient, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION,

An interdependent genus or subgenus of species who collectively satisfy the tests of sapience given above shall be considered a single sapient species for purposes of this resolution.

Approvals: 6 (Flibbleites, Errinundera, Gruenberg, Party Mode, Iron Felix, Ellenburg, Allech-Atreus, Corellisi, Tinis, Windurst1, Davane, The Derrak Quadrant, Novo Sibirsk, The Wolf Guardians, The Delphinic Peoples)
Status: Lacking Support (requires 106 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Wed Sep 13 2006

Character Count: 2170Explanation of the Proposed ResolutionThis is an example of how NationStates differs from Real Life™.

In Real Life™, only homo sapiens is sapient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience) (this is arguable, but for the moment we will ride with it). In NationStates, however, humans and joined by elves, dwarves, penguins, space aliens, and all manner of intelligent life in enjoying that honor.

Yet most of United Nations law speaks of “human rights”, and most players act as though humanity were the only show in town. Thus, when resolutions like the repeal of PoDA came up for a vote, nobody asked: “What does this mean for those dolphins who are intelligent?” The same happened with the repeal of “Definition of Marriage”: the debate seems to have hinged on the perception that the resolution countenanced bestiality, without most Members realizing that the offending wording was intended to protect human/non-human liasons (like the marriage of Aragorn [a human] to Arwn Evenstar [an elf] in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings).

These incidents threaten to reduce non-humans to second-class citizens. Our resolution is intended to address this.

Fair warning, then: In the debate to follow, we will roundly criticize anyone who proclaims that there are no non-human sapients in NationStates, by reminding them that NationStates is not Real Life™, and they only show their ignorance by holding otherwise.

One final note: we will turn over our role in this debate to a non-Member state with a keener interest in this matter than ours: The Rogue Pod of Bloodthirsty Dolphins.

I understand where you're going with this, and I find the idea both compelling and intriguing, but I am concerned that the resolution will turn UN legislating ground on it's head.

It also presents several game mechanics issues that could cause serious problems... for example, "Banning Whaling." If Whales are an intelligent species that can talk and play chess in "OMGWTF LAND OF WHALES," aren't we faced with grievous branding and a highly illegal proposal on the books?

I guess I'm asking Hack or someone to clarify what exactly we would do with this.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. I'm just a bit confused and concerned.

I understand where you're going with this, and I find the idea both compelling and intriguing, but I am concerned that the resolution will turn UN legislating ground on it's head.

It also presents several game mechanics issues that could cause serious problems... for example, "Banning Whaling." If Whales are an intelligent species that can talk and play chess in "OMGWTF LAND OF WHALES," aren't we faced with grievous branding and a highly illegal proposal on the books?

I guess I'm asking Hack or someone to clarify what exactly we would do with this.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. I'm just a bit confused and concerned.

There is a strong precedent for proposals granting this right, so there probably isn't any legality issue here. In December of 2005, Rights of Biological Sapients (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_of_Biological_Sapients) reached quorum and was defeated at a percentile of 38%.

As our colleagues who know us would undoubtedly assume, Ausserland will strongly support this effort. Although we find the draft generally well thought-out and well written, we do have some problems with it....

We have no idea what repeals have to do with this issue, find the first two preambulatory clauses irrelevant, and recommend their deletion. We believe the argument would be strengthened by having the third clause right up front and continuing from there.

Recommend striking "affiliation" from the second "FORBID" clause. The word is superfluous and inaccurate. Beings are members of species, not affiliated with them.

We're not sure that a "consensus opinion", as required in Clause II, is a reasonable expectation. Consensus requires unanimity in agreement, and dissent within the scientific community could be expected.

The last clause leaves us puzzled. We have no idea what "An interdependent genus or subgenus" means. Why is it necessary to include this clause at all?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We are in agreement with the comments of our distinguished colleague from Ausserland. We respectfully urge the Delegation of Community Property to follow the suggestions of Ambassador-at-Large Ahlmann. After the changes suggested by the Ausserlander delegation are made, we will be happy to support this through our UN representative, Iron Felix.

(OOC: Felix won't have anything good to say about this proposal, but in the end he will follow orders and support it.)

I really wish you would post drafts...

CONCERNED that this has led to a tendency to use the risk of extinction as the only test of whether or not a species is worthy of protectionBorderline metagaming, as you seem to be complaining about recent forum activity.

FORBID the passage by Members of future legislation denying equal protection under their law to any sapient species,Redundant and unnecessary. And, depending on how strict an interpretation is being used, illegal (forbidding future action). By existing the Resolution would provide these protections; restating isn't required.

I. If a sovereign state, whether a Member or not, recognizes a species as eligible for citizenship, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.I can't wait for the Kennyites to declare their pet rocks to be sapient, thus forcing it onto all UN nations...

The last clause leaves us puzzled. We have no idea what "An interdependent genus or subgenus" means. Why is it necessary to include this clause at all?We are aware of at least one civilization (the Ylii) who consist of a collection of some 33 polytaxic species and subspecies, each providing a separate social function; the closest human analogy (from your fictional literature) would be the simian civilization in Pierre Boulet's novel Planet of the Apes (in which orangutans were the philosphers, chimpanzees the scientists, gorillas the soldiers, etc.).

<Pauses, consults database>

It turns out that there are also several Zerg nations (see II); the Zerg, like the Ylii, are also a collection of interdependent species, all members of the same genus (in this case, due to genetic engineering, since some of these species were not always so).CONCERNED that this has led to a tendency to use the risk of extinction as the only test of whether or not a species is worthy of protection.Borderline metagaming, as you seem to be complaining about recent forum activity.Since these statements have been made in the preambles of at least two repeal resolutions, one of which has passed (the repeal of PoDA), as well as the discussion and debate over these resolutions, we believe that this is not a metagaming violation; if it were, any reference to other resolutions (or their legislative records) would be such a violation.

(Nor is it a “house of cards” violation, since repeals can't be repealed.)FORBID the passage by Members of future legislation denying equal protection under their law to any sapient species,Redundant and unnecessary. And, depending on how strict an interpretation is being used, illegal (forbidding future action). By existing the Resolution would provide these protections; restating isn't required.By the context and wording, this is a reference to national laws within the Members' own states, since a resolution passed by the United Nations (or the General Assembly) would clearly be indicated as such; nonethless, we have consulted with Community Property and they are willing to reword to clarify this.

As for redundancy, there are numerous examples where Members have maintained the position that they only need strike down the offending statutes once (at the time of passage, per the action of the UN Gnomes), after which they are free to revert to past behavior. An explicit ban is needed to make clear that this loophole is closed.I can't wait for the Kennyites to declare their pet rocks to be sapient, thus forcing it onto all UN nations...That probably can't be helped. The consolation is that you can classify said sapient silicon entities as “resident aliens” in the worst case (i.e., where you can't prove that Kennyite rocks are a different species than your own) and either order them expelled (extreme, we know) or - better still - declare war on OMGTKK and order all rocks interned, declare their civil rights suspended (if that's what you do with foreign nationals in time of war), or simply subject them to observation.

<Pauses, wondering if the humans will get the joke>

Since these statements have been made in the preambles of at least two repeal resolutions...which are not binding laws.

we believe that this is not a metagaming violation; if it were, any reference to other resolutions (or their legislative records) would be such a violation.Huh. Pity I didn't say "borderline".

...oh wait, I did.

As for redundancy, there are numerous examples where Members have maintained the position that they only need strike down the offending statutes once (at the time of passage, per the action of the UN Gnomes), after which they are free to revert to past behavior.So you're arguing that should this pass and then later be Repealed, that clause would still be in effect?

Then it's definately illegal.

Huh. Pity I didn't say "borderline".

...oh wait, I did.We never said you didn't; but “borderline” suggests the need for clarification/justification, and that's what we gave. If you insist, we can ask Community Property to strike that phrase or make it speculative (“CONCERNED that this might lead to... <etc.>”So you're arguing that should this pass and then later be Repealed, that clause would still be in effect?

Then it's definately illegal.We make no such argument.

The clause is intended to close a loophole frequently claimed by various nations: that resolutions only affect them once, after which they can go back to their old behavior even though the resolution is still in force. This was claimed in the case of the original Biological Weapons ban (“It said I had to destroy what I had; it didn't say I couldn't make more once those stocks were gone”), and the wording of the “INVALIDATE” close is subject to the same kind of argument. IOW, it's not enough to strike down what's in place, you have to keep new laws from being written to replace them.

Obviously, though, such a ban would no longer apply in the event of a repeal: the “FORBID” clause would be lifted. Indeed, why would any - how could anyone - believe otherwise.

So may I ask why you're so angry? Your tone seems overly harsh, considering what's been said and done thus far.

The clause is intended to close a loophole frequently claimed by various nationsNations also claim to ignore Resolutions. That doesn't mean it needs to be addressed in said Resolutions.

Does that mean it can't be?

A good proposal on the whole, but section II is very vague, and open to all sorts of interpretations.

Community Property has told us that that particular section was the most troublesome in the resolution. What was desired was a vote by some internationally-recognized body (without the need to create a new NSUN organization) - maybe an International Union of Scientists or such. It was important, however, to avoid getting too specific, as organizations change, both in title and disciplinary scope.

The authors are open to suggestion on this point.

This is a well thought out proposal. I strongly encourage all delegates to approve this and bring it up to the floor for an up or down vote, which I would like to see an up vote.

I would say more, but I would get into trouble again. :cool:

I can't wait for the Kennyites to declare their pet rocks to be sapient, thus forcing it onto all UN nations...

It would be foolish to do so since they would then have to offer to rocks all the rights and protections they offer to humans. It would be a very costly exercise simply to highlight a supposed flaw in the proposal.

We would support this proposal. It would remove the need to to include the provision for non-human species in every resolution, a provision that always leads people to (wrongly) assume the proposal is being applied to animals and therefore reject or repeal the resolution.

It would be foolish to do so since they would then have to offer to rocks all the rights and protections they offer to humans. It would be a very costly exercise simply to highlight a supposed flaw in the proposal.Oh, we don't know. It would be amusing to see the world declare war on OMGTKK and then repatriate all of their rocks...

Anyway, more suggestions? We don't expect to reach quorom by Wednesday, so we'll have Community Property resubmit with amendments then (and at that point, we'll ask all first round endorsers to re-endorse and begin a TG campaign unless there are major rewrites).

So all suggestions are welcome.

"The Commonwealth, being one of the nations that would benefit greatly from this, supports it entirely. Thank you."

We like very mucch this topic and are pretty happy that a new draft is being posted.

We are also concerned about the possible loophole of clause I, but we didn't made up our minds yet about it, i'm lost and really don't know what to think about it.

It grants non-Human sapients exactly the same rights as Humans, as specified in the relevant laws: There are some cases (such as age-linked rights, in the context of species whose lifespans &/or ageing patterns differ from the Human one) where that isn't really appropriate...

I was working on a draft proposal along these lines too, and will post it here this evening (OOC: by British time) for comparison...

FORBID the passage by Members of future legislation denying equal protection under their law to any sapient species,

OOC: I realize I'm a bit late to the thread, but...I'd suggest a re-write of this clause if you're going to keep it, which I don't think you need to. As written, it reads like you're explicitly saying that the UN can't pass future legislation. Specifying "legislation in member nations" rather than the overbroad "legislation" would help.

Okay, here as I promised earlier today is the current draft for a proposal on this subject that I have been putting together over the last week or so.

“This is a topic that matters quite a bit to my government, because the populations of the Godwinnian Commonwealth’s nations include not only Humans but some ‘Ouphs’ (who are a type of ‘Elf’) and Ouph/Human hybrids, and also some Talking Cats, as well. It was actually the first subject on which we opened a discussion here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452444), as some of you may recall, although on that occasion another nation submitted a rival proposal of their own (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458199) before we felt that our one was ready and when theirs was decisively rejected by the General Assembly we decided to let the matter rest for a while… As the topic had been raised here again on several occasions recently, in the General Assembly as well as in the Strangers’ Bar, we decided to have another go at producing a proposal that would be worth submitting and had already assigned our main proposal-drafting team to this project* several days before the nation of ‘Community Property’ brought their proposal to your attention…”

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN for
the St Edmundan Antarctic

Rights for Intelligent Beings

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed ‘Human Rights’ in various respects,

REALISING that it might pass further ‘Human Rights’ resolutions in future, too,

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not actually ‘Human’ (if that term is taken to mean just “members of the biological species ‘Homo sapiens’) but who possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species,

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-‘Human’ beings as deserving comparable rights to members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’,

BELIEVING that species should not be considered adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’”;

2. RECOGNISES that many types of Sapients possess various innate physical and/or psychological differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’, and that in some cases these would actually make granting those beings exactly the same rights as are specified for the members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’ unfair in itself;

3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where their types’ innate differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’ would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares any UN-guaranteed ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair for any type of Sapients to grant those Sapients alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

6. ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, ordinary observation, and common sense — any disputes that might arise about whether or not specific types of beings are ‘Sapient’, whether denying specific rights to any specific types of Sapients is justifiable, and whether whatever alternative rights have been suggested instead in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

7. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might allow in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

8. ACCEPTS that, except in any cases where any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force specify otherwise, nations may choose to make the possession of some or all civil rights dependant upon the acceptance of appropriate civic responsibilities.


(* OOC: which is one of the reasons why I dropped out of trying to write an ‘Interpol’ proposal…)

(Also OOC: In case any of you didn’t already know, the ‘Bears’ that have been seen around here [and at the Olympics] recently are — despite their homeland having no ‘IC’ connection to the Godwinnian Commonwealth — also from one of my nations…)

It grants non-Human sapients exactly the same rights as Humans, as specified in the relevant laws: There are some cases (such as age-linked rights, in the context of species whose lifespans &/or ageing patterns differ from the Human one) where that isn't really appropriate...It grants non-Human sapients exactly the same rights as Humans, as specified in the relevant laws: There are some cases (such as age-linked rights, in the context of species whose lifespans &/or ageing patterns differ from the Human one) where that isn't really appropriate...

I was working on a draft proposal along these lines too, and will post it here this evening (OOC: by British time) for comparison...Actually, this resolution does more than that.

The word “human” doesn't appear anywhere in the text, except as part of the term “non-human”. Nowhere does this resolution say “non-humans are to now given the rights of humans”. Rather, what it says is “all sentients will have the same rights.”

Now, qualifying this is the fact that this resolution never says that you have to treat everyone the same. You can give citizens one set of rights, native non-citizens another, resident aliens yet another, resident aliens from hostile nations still another, and so on. Moreover, you can restrict citizenship to any species (single or plural) you wish.

This has subtle but profound implications.

An human nation that makes elves citizens must give elves all rights of citizenship; but so must an elven nation that makes humans citizens. In the former case elves gain all the rights of humans; but in the latter case humans gain all rights of elves. The resolution says that you must treat all sapient species the same under law; what rights different species get as a consequence of this resolution will depend on local law.

Now, the resolution does not require you to grant all sapients citizenship; a vampire nation may restrict citizenship to vampires. This allows nations with a strong species affiliation to retain their identity. But all other sapients must be treated the same way according to criteria other than species classification.

Thus a nation of dwarves doesn't have to give goblins citizenship; but if both humans and goblins live within this dwarven nation's borders, then both must be treated the same. Nations can, of course, still distinguish between natives and resident aliens, resident aliens and visitors, etc., so a werepenguin visitor to this nation could have more rights or fewer than the native humans and goblins; that's up to the national government. But a visiting Klingon will have the same rights as that visiting werepenguin, because both are visiting aliens.

In other words, this resolution leaves Members tremendous flexibility in the application of their laws, and nowhere does it force “new” rights to be created – rather, it simply says that whatever rights you have defined now must be fairly applied.

The largest effect will be in international waters and airspace (or aerospace): here there are no national laws to define different classes of individuals, so all sapients must be treated the same under international law. If attacking a ship full of humans is piracy, so is attacking a ship full of centaurs.

Thus it's wrong to think of this as giving everyone human rights; what this resolution does is give everybody the same rights, within the restrictions of local law. Okay, here as I promised earlier today is the current draft for a proposal on this subject that I have been putting together over the last week or so.We'll look it over and see where improvements might be made to our proposal, although we see some problematic areas that we will discuss once we've had time to digest what you've presented.

OOC: I realize I'm a bit late to the thread, but...I'd suggest a re-write of this clause if you're going to keep it, which I don't think you need to. As written, it reads like you're explicitly saying that the UN can't pass future legislation. Specifying "legislation in member nations" rather than the overbroad "legislation" would help.In the next draft, something similar to your suggestion will be implemented.

It would remove the need to to include the provision for non-human species in every resolution, a provision that always leads people to (wrongly) assume the proposal is being applied to animals and therefore reject or repeal the resolution.First off HUMANS are ANIMALS thus it does apply to ANIMALS if it cover HUMANS.

Our greatest concern is that this says we have to respect laws on this issue created by states outside the UN. Since these are not under any obligation to work with the UN or comply with UN resolutions and many of them want nothing more to see the UN fall then this gives them a way to crack the UN. All they have to do is make every THING by law Sapient and then UN membership has to give every THING equal rights given so called HUMANS or ANIMALS.

Thus we would not see fit to support this as that area we feel needs to be removed. As if the UN can't effect directly nations outisde it in a resolution then it shouldn't have the right to say members should comply with any laws of outside nations. Since it can't make resolutions to effeft those nations.

Interesting to see this show up again. The Palentine recognizes the sentience of other creatures. We've met(and quaffed some Iron City) with the repesentatives from Ausserland, so we accept the existence of Dwarves. Our region has its own Gnomish anti-gnome specialists, so we accept the existence of Gnomes. Never met an elf, Zombies aren't to bad to be around, and aliens are over-rated. As far as critters are concerned, The Palentine only recognizes the intellegence and sentience of two native species...the fierce, loyaly and territorial penguin, staltworth defender of the Antarctic Oasis, and our Nation's brave, loyaly and profane naval defenders, the Palentine Naval Dolphin. I would tell you what they think of this matter, but out of deference to some of the delegates sitting here, I shall keep their responce silent. So I wish you luck, but I believe I will either vote against this resolution or abstain.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Oh, we don't know. It would be amusing to see the world declare war on OMGTKK and then repatriate all of their rocks...

No it wouldn't, the region OMGTKK is part of, now has a Mutual defence treaty and a Freaking DEATH STAR!!! (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142)

It would be foolish to do so since they would then have to offer to rocks all the rights and protections they offer to humans. It would be a very costly exercise simply to highlight a supposed flaw in the proposal.

As if the Kennyites have never done anything foolish... ;)

First off HUMANS are ANIMALS thus it does apply to ANIMALS if it cover HUMANS.I have no idea what you're trying to say.Our greatest concern is that this says we have to respect laws on this issue created by states outside the UN.This says nothing of the sort.

Is says that your laws must be applied uniformly within your borders. There's nothing at all that requires you to obey anybody else's laws but yours.Since these are not under any obligation to work with the UN or comply with UN resolutions and many of them want nothing more to see the UN fall then this gives them a way to crack the UN.Again, you're not being clear. Give us an example.All they have to do is make every THING by law Sapient and then UN membership has to give every THING equal rights given so called HUMANS or ANIMALS.You're worried about that?

<Supresses laughter>

If any nation wants to try and pull that stunt, let them. They will have to extend all rights of citizenship to anything they want us to recognize as sapient; if they don't we, don't have to recognize it as sapient at all.

Next, we don't have to grant citizenship to species they recognize as sapient; we can classify them as non-citizens. Then we can sub-classify these non-citizens according to whether they can talk, display a certain rudimentary level on intelligence, etc. Believe is, the damage will be far worse to them than it will be to us.Thus we would not see fit to support this as that area we feel needs to be removed. As if the UN can't effect directly nations outisde it in a resolution then it shouldn't have the right to say members should comply with any laws of outside nations. Since it can't make resolutions to effeft those nations.We'd be much more concerned about what some NSUN Members would do than nations outside the NSUN if we were you. The Kennyites in particular come to mind...

Taking my proposal on this topic for a trial run...

First off HUMANS are ANIMALS thus it does apply to ANIMALS if it cover HUMANS.

You fail at logic.

It's currently at just 38 approvals, and runs out of time today. I have to go offline now: If any of you feels like checking it shortly before the update, to see whether anybody else has added their support, I'd be grateful...

Wolfgang, who has actually shown up in person to this debate, lets loose a sigh. "It still hasn't changed. 38. Well, regardless of what happens, you have the continued support of the Commonwealth."

Approvals: 38 (St Edmundan Antarctic, Ala cuisene, FreeChina, Witchcliff, Complacent Boredom, Flibbleites, Pickwick and Yuna, WZ Forums, Bordoria, Eunotopia, Iron Felix, Taeem, Thelostsouls, The Derrak Quadrant, De Ganja, Nicoshore, Errinundera, Party Mode, Manussa, Davane, Tonuria, Ultrasilvania, Pessimism land, Firebert, Tarmsden, Xerconia, New Hamilton, Daygon, Kindjal, Pongo-Pongo, Chandelier, The Wolf Guardians, Cetyria, Korsolev, Agramerland, Gheik, Someweirdplace, Aaronioviskyichia)

This is at best problematic. What if these said sapients have been programmed to do specific tasks which would be consider inappropriate for humans. The said sapients willingly do these tasks but because "humans" have certain protections, they are suddenly excluded from doing these tasks because other "humans" object to how they are being treated. This effectively destroys the sapients purpose. This could be applied to robots, androids, and clones.

This also assumes that "sapients" want the same rights. For example one group of "sapients" lets say the orcs have the right to trial by combat. Does this mean that it is the right of the orcs to have the humans do trial by combat if they live in the same area. Rights and mores are certainly not universal between species. And some of the things which one species does is certainly not beneficial to another. Please rethink how you are phrasing this.

SEA, I'm currently working on other things, including an involved RP with one of my puppets. I have no interest in competing with you; I think we should put our heads together on this. That in mind, here are some thoughts before we redraft and resubmit: We've got two different definitions of sapience here. Mine is that anyone who's a citizen in some NS nation somewhere is a sapient. Yes, that let's OMGTKK declare its pet rocks citizens, but it seems to me that we really don't want to be denying fundamental rights to anybody's citizenry no matter what they are.

You, OTOH, use human intelligence as a baseline. That's still anthrocentric, not to mention insulting to humans. Do we really want to say that anything stupider than a human isn't sapient? Are humans really the stupidest sapient species in all of creation?

I think we have to decide what the goal is and craft the definition of sapience to meet that goal. Thus...


My goal in drafting this - and I may have done more than I wanted in my proposal - was to ensure that all nations' citizens are treated equally under international law. Look at this in the context of PoDA: dolphins, whales, etc., aren't endangered in NS, but many of them are intelligent (there must be hundreds of dolphin nations, for example; and I wouldn't be surprised if there are whale nations, too). Yet dolphin and whale hunters have no compunction about murdering the citizens of a foreign power for food, and are legally protected by the NSUN in doing so. At the least, attacking somebody else citizens on the high seas (or in other international areas) should be considered terrorism or piracy and dealt with accordingly.

So maybe what I want to say is that all acts of the NSUN apply equally to all sapient species - but to say it in a way that isn't anthrocentric.


Conversely, while I'm not so concerned about what people do within their own borders, I suspect that you are, and further suspect that we must address that issue to get any sapient rights proposal enacted. I'd like to give people maximum flexibility in making decisions w/re to the treatment of sapients. but I am certainly to go beyond the minimum in the name of decency.Your thoughts, SEA?

We've got two different definitions of sapience here. Mine is that anyone who's a citizen in some NS nation somewhere is a sapient. Yes, that let's OMGTKK declare its pet rocks citizens, but it seems to me that we really don't want to be denying fundamental rights to anybody's citizenry no matter what they are.

I've never understood this argument. If we limit the resolution to "fundamental" human rights as defined by UN resolutions it makes no sense whatsoever to declare those rights on pet rocks. There is no practical fundamental right declared in the United Nations that can apply to pet rocks; perhaps the wolfish convention on POWS if Kenny uses their pet rocks against the enemy but other than that I can't think of a single one.

Intelligence is a complex and difficult issue. So too is sentience, and even awareness. We all know the classic "I think therefore I am" but on the same vein I can't prove "You think" one way or the other.

A very over simplistic notion would have the burden fall to the sapient species to claim sentience and rights under the convention. Otherwise we fall into the same trap that the World Heritage List has, the ability to name someone elses creatures sentient for purposes of economic or political warfare.

OK, let's take a step back here.

There are (at least) two potential goals for this legislation (but I'll stick with these two for now): Ensure that nations with non-human citizens recieve the same treatment in international affairs as citizens with human citizens do (for example, that their soldiers are treated as POW's and their nationals are protected in time of war from being declared “animals” and thus subject to slaughter or use in medical experiments, etc.). Right now too much NSUN legislation applies to humans and not non-human sapients who, as citizens of NS Members, ought to be entitled to equal protection under the law.


Ensure that nations can not treat subject populations of sapient non-humans in a fashion contrary to the bounds of decency (for example, by waging a campaign of genocide against them because [as above], they're “just animals” and therefore do not merit such protection).My main focus is on the first point: I don't want some NSUN Members to have more rights than other Members, or some to enjoy less protection.

Other people can address the second point if they please - but what I will state categorically is that intelligence isn't the real test needed for the first goal: national citizenship is.

OOC: placeholder... will reply this afternoon.

Sorry, couldn't get online much recently...

Okay, the main problems that I have with the proposal that 'Community Property' & 'Bloodthirsty Dolphins' have put forwards are _

REQUIRE all Member nations to extend to any sapient species all legal rights and protections which are currently extended to any sapient species under their law,
So what about cases where species' needs honestly do differ? One obvious example (that's been used in other discussions) is different life-expectancies & ageing patterns, which could make setting a single age at which one gains the rights of an "adult" -- regardless of species & effective maturity -- inappropriate. We need to distinguish between discrimination and unfair discrimination which (as I believe I've said before) are not the same thing... The nations of the Godwinnian Commonwealth have populations that include not only Humans but 'Ouphs' (a type of Elf; significantly longer-lived than Humans) and Talking Cats (somewhat shorter-lived, and significantly faster-maturing, than Humans) too, which means that we need to define three separate ages of majority... but your proposal would apparently force us to use a single age, which wouldn't fit at least two of those species, unless we barred two of them from citizenship which we won't do...
And there are probably some nations that have both (a) plural species of sapient citizens, differing in lifespans, and (b) 'state' pension schemes: Wouldn't the wording of your proposal force them to set a single age for eligibility to recieve those pensions, regardless of how long typical members of each species concerned could have spent in the workforce and would have left to live? Does that really seem fair to you?

PERMIT Member nations to restrict citizenship to certain sapient species, but

FORBID Member nations from discriminating under their law among resident non-citizens of different sentient species merely on a basis of species affiliation.

'Sentient' is not the same as 'sapient'...

I. If a sovereign state, whether a Member or not, recognizes a species as eligible for citizenship, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

II. If consensus opinion among scientists worldwide, as expressed in formal opinions issued by scientific organizations of global standing competent to render such a judgment, holds a species to be sapient, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

III. If the United Nations issues a resolution declaring a particular species sapient, then that species shall be considered sapient for the purposes of this resolution.

So if the only nations in which a particular type of sapient beings exists deny it citizenship, and it isn't known to enough "scientists worldwide" for a ruling by them, and the UN doesn't get around to legislating on the matter, they can still be mistreated?

This is at best problematic. What if these said sapients have been programmed to do specific tasks which would be consider inappropriate for humans. The said sapients willingly do these tasks but because "humans" have certain protections, they are suddenly excluded from doing these tasks because other "humans" object to how they are being treated. This effectively destroys the sapients purpose. This could be applied to robots, androids, and clones.

This is one of the reasons why my government's proposal on the matter specifies 'free will' as a requirement for entitlement to rights...

This is one of the reasons why my government's proposal on the matter specifies 'free will' as a requirement for entitlement to rights...

You do realise that not everyone believes in the existence of free will? The Ariddian philosopher Bastien Ferailler (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bastien_Ferailler), for example...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

SEA, I'm currently working on other things, including an involved RP with one of my puppets. I have no interest in competing with you; I think we should put our heads together on this.
Agreed in principle.

You, OTOH, use human intelligence as a baseline. That's still anthrocentric, not to mention insulting to humans. Do we really want to say that anything stupider than a human isn't sapient? Are humans really the stupidest sapient species in all of creation?
My precise wording referred to "levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species," and I left it to the committee that would be established to decide how far off "approach" could mean: A touch anthrocentric, maybe, but given that Humans are the species with which most nations' governments are probably most familiar -- and the fact that if I'd used any other species as an example some people would probably have failed to recognise it ( and might even have refused to acknowledge its existence in the NS multiverse at all...) -- I felt that using that species as the main basis of comparison was the logical way to go...

My goal in drafting this - and I may have done more than I wanted in my proposal - was to ensure that all nations' citizens are treated equally under international law. Look at this in the context of PoDA: dolphins, whales, etc., aren't endangered in NS, but many of them are intelligent (there must be hundreds of dolphin nations, for example; and I wouldn't be surprised if there are whale nations, too). Yet dolphin and whale hunters have no compunction about murdering the citizens of a foreign power for food, and are legally protected by the NSUN in doing so. At the least, attacking somebody else citizens on the high seas (or in other international areas) should be considered terrorism or piracy and dealt with accordingly. Agreed in principle. I think that my government's proposal on the matter would also have had the desired effect.

So maybe what I want to say is that all acts of the NSUN apply equally to all sapient species - but to say it in a way that isn't anthrocentric.
Free education up to the age of 18 not only for Humans but also for members of species with typical lifespans either thrice or half the Human norm?

Conversely, while I'm not so concerned about what people do within their own borders, I suspect that you are, and further suspect that we must address that issue to get any sapient rights proposal enacted. I'd like to give people maximum flexibility in making decisions w/re to the treatment of sapients. but I am certainly to go beyond the minimum in the name of decency.
My government generally wants to leave governments with as much freedom of action within their own borders as possible, that's why we left the clause about their own laws as non-binding: Our approach here was simply meant to ensure that they apply the UN's (other) rules fairly in this respect...

'Rights for Intelligent Beings' has been resubmitted.

I sent you a telegram about this one. I wonder if what you submitted was actually the final draft.

I sent you a telegram about this one. I wonder if what you submitted was actually the final draft.

Telegram received. Must have been the penultimate draft instead. GHR filed asking for it to be deleted, so that I can resubmit the correct one in its place...

You do realise that not everyone believes in the existence of free will? The Ariddian philosopher Bastien Ferailler (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bastien_Ferailler), for example...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This is great to see that NSwiki is now populated with some interesting philosophers.

Even if i personnaly believes that humans have just little bit of free will, obviously not a lot, but just a very little bit; I really understand the views of Bastien Ferailler. And then, as nobody can be certain on this topic, up to know, I think he is right to say that this proposal cannot specify 'free will' as a requirement for entitlement to rights...

That said we would like to applaud the concerted efforts to draft a good proposal on this topic and we will very likely support it.

Telegram received. Must have been the penultimate draft instead. GHR filed asking for it to be deleted, so that I can resubmit the correct one in its place...

Earlier submission deleted, correct version resubmitted here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=intelligent).

You do realise that not everyone believes in the existence of free will? The Ariddian philosopher Bastien Ferailler (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bastien_Ferailler), for example...

You do realise that not everyone believes in the existence of the Ariddian philosopher Bastien Ferailler (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bastien_Ferailler)? ;)

This is great to see that NSwiki is now populated with some interesting philosophers.

Even if i personnaly believes that humans have just little bit of free will, obviously not a lot, but just a very little bit; I really understand the views of Bastien Ferailler. And then, as nobody can be certain on this topic, up to know, I think he is right to say that this proposal cannot specify 'free will' as a requirement for entitlement to rights...


I've read two of his books, and I agree with him on many points, though maybe not all. Thank you for agreeing on that point, in any case.


You do realise that not everyone believes in the existence of the Ariddian philosopher Bastien Ferailler?

But... I've read two of his books! Although I've never met him myself. I assume you refer to the theory of fractal reality? Even Comrade Ferailler's possible non-existence in certain planes of reality doesn't negate the validity of his thinking though, surely.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you tried to meet him and he didn't exist in your locus of reality...

Do I exist?


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I am sorry that I missed out on the drafting of this proposal. I'm strongly in favor, and will be granting it my approval.

A panel could be introduced to decide whether the animal was "human" enough.

A panel could be introduced to decide whether the animal was "human" enough.Who cares how “human” a sophont is? The question is whether it is sophont enough to be a legal person.

SEA, I'm going to start a new thread and post your proposal at the start, so that people don't erroneously think that CP's proposal is the one under current consideration.

P.S. The new thread, “SUBMITTED: Rights for Intelligent Beings (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11869793)”, has now been created. At the request of the People's Democratic Republic of Community Property (for whom we are acting as floor managers in the debate on sapient rights), the observer delegation from the Rogue Pod of Bloodthirsty Dolphins (that's us) asks that you continue this discussion in that thread.