NationStates Jolt Archive

Approval Link (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sentients):

Sentients Rights Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that the recognition of the rights of sapients under international law remains a contentious issue within these halls;

Applauding the efforts of nations to extend essential rights and freedoms to non-human sapients in their own territories, and to lobby on behalf of non-human sapients on the global stage;

Affirming that all sapient creatures deserve the same rights and freedoms extended to humans, and that all sentient beings are deserving of protection under international law;

Noting that this legislation applies only to natural biological sapient species:

Defines "sapience" as independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others;

Defines "sentience" as the ability to perceive consciousness or self-awareness, an intelligence that does not necessarily rise to the level of sapience;

Declares that member nations shall determine which biological species residing in their own borders possess sentient or sapient qualities, provided that the process involved is fair and even-handed and excludes potential conflicts of interest, that all available valid and confirmed scientific evidence is taken into account, and that denials of sentient or sapient status can be appealed to a higher, disinterested official or body within the government;

Requires member states to extend rights, freedoms, privileges and entitlements, on a par with those guaranteed to humans under international law, to all sapient species under their jurisdiction;

Obligates member states to take all prudent and necessary measures to protect all sentient creatures under their jurisdiction from deliberate, unprovoked harm, violence, killings, or extermination.Keeping in mind, of course, that for the purposes of this legislation, sentience is being lumped together with sapience because on a whole "sentience" is a less offensive term, and sure to draw much less hysterical opposition as the last biological sapients proposal to reach the floor. Any input on the definitions for "sentience" and "sapience," as well as the legal ramifications of this legislation, would be especially welcomed.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the World Assembly

Generally positive vibes from here, Ambassador Shemp. I'm a bit concerned about governments being the ones to determine sentience/sapience, but the rider's probably good enough to hold. At least, I can't come up with a reasonable interpretation that gets round it yet :-)

I'd still prefer setting up a WA committee for appeals, or even for offering expert advice, but I know there are more than a few nations who have a severe allergy to committees. Then again, I'm a career civil servant, I'm bound to think that way. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.

You're a brave, brave man...

My government thanks the government of SchutteGod for raising this topic, which is actually one that we had been considering as a possible subject for WA legislation ourselves. Your current draft seems most eloquent, and there are only two points within it that we would question.
Firstly, there is the matter of whether all sapient beings should receive exactly the same rights, as you are suggesting, or whether some allowance for differences in biological factors (such as lifespans) should be allowed as long as the overall packages of rights granted are basically equivalent.
Secondly, given that one of your possible qualifying factors for 'sentience' is the ability to perceive sensations and that that would seem to qualify most (if not all) animals -- and, indeed, possibly some plants -- as 'sentient', we would ask whether the ban on "deliberate, unprovoked harm, violence, killing, hunting" of such beings in your final clause was actually meant to enforce vegetarianism?


Borrin o Redwood,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for the government of
The Confederated Clans of Bears Armed.

The delegation from Scottorium, aggrees with the the proposal. And will back this proposal publicly as soon as the questions raised by the Confederated Clan of Bear Arms, is answered.



Jose Estevez
Secretary of the CLRD(Civil Liberties Research Department) of the Commonwealth of Scottorium

Generally positive vibes from here, Ambassador Shemp. I'm a bit concerned about governments being the ones to determine sentience/sapience, but the rider's probably good enough to hold. At least, I can't come up with a reasonable interpretation that gets round it yet :-)

I'd still prefer setting up a WA committee for appeals, or even for offering expert advice, but I know there are more than a few nations who have a severe allergy to committees. Then again, I'm a career civil servant, I'm bound to think that way. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.No, we are not among those who put much stock in committees, except where they are absolutely necessary. We considered sweetening the pot by adding a provision for international research of non-human sapience/sentience, or at least encouraging member states to support and fund such research, but we forgot to add it.

Thoughts, reactions?


Firstly, there is the matter of whether all sapient beings should receive exactly the same rights, as you are suggesting, or whether some allowance for differences in biological factors (such as lifespans) should be allowed as long as the overall packages of rights granted are basically equivalent.
Secondly, given that one of your possible qualifying factors for 'sentience' is the ability to perceive sensations and that that would seem to qualify most (if not all) animals -- and, indeed, possibly some plants -- as 'sentient', we would ask whether the ban on "deliberate, unprovoked harm, violence, killing, hunting" of such beings in your final clause was actually meant to enforce vegetarianism?OK, the language has been changed to "rights and freedoms on a par with those guaranteed to humans," and the definition of "sentience" now omits reference to sensations. We are of course no experts on this subject, so any other input on refining these definitions would be appreciated.

Thank you for your contributions, Mr. Redwood.

No, we are not among those who put much stock in committees, except where they are absolutely necessary. We considered sweetening the pot by adding a provision for international research of non-human sapience/sentience, or at least encouraging member states to support and fund such research, but we forgot to add it.

Thoughts, reactions?

That might sweeten the pot, but as ever it raises the issue of where the money is coming from. Certain nations would no doubt hit the roof about being "forced" to "waste" money on determining the sentience of the Zabriskan Fontema or whatever. That's one possible reason for creating an international organisation of experts who could advise -- nations still have to pay, but they might see it as getting someone else to do the work so that they don't have to bother.

Thank you for your contributions, Mr. Redwood.
You're welcome. The passage of a good proposal on this subject would, after all, be very much in my own nation's interest.

(Ahem! And it's "Mr. o Redwood", if you want to be accurate...)

Enos Slaughter swoops down from his dirt dauber nest and buzzes excitedly around Shemp #3's head. He makes several low-level passes over the SchutteGodistanian delegation, sending papers and manila envelopes flying in all directions. Finally, he alights in front of Shemp #3 and plants a big sloppy kiss right on the startled ambassador's lips.

Thank you! Thank you! Blessed is the name of Shemp #3 and blessed is The Autocratic Freak Show of SchutteGod!

On behalf of The Empire of Dirt Daubers, the Wasps, the Yellow Jackets, the Flies, the Bees, the Swans, the Sparrows, and all the Flying Folk; on behalf of my unborn larva...I honor you today and bestow upon you this humble gift.

Enos Slaughter hands Shemp #3 a cake made of mummified spider and caterpillar parts.

Long have we awaited this day when the sons of wasps and the sons of men could stand as equals and the long and terrible genocide against our people would come to an end!

As for the text of the proposal, I advise you to ignore the insane ramblings of the Gobbannaens and resist the urge to include a committee.

Also...
"Recognizing that the recognition"
Sounds a little odd. I understand the intent, but the wording is a bit cumbersome. Unless it was intended to be cumbersome, or humorous, in which case it is genius and should be left as is.

Any assistance I or my delegation can provide in the passage of this proposal will be gladly given.

I shall erect a mud sculpture in your honor.

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

My god.....

My god.....

Yes?

God

lol @ Flibbleites

lol @ Flibbleites
mud @ Zeyakistan

I worry about the reference to "hunting" in the final clause. I'm afraid it might cause alarm amongst pro-hunting delegations. Hunting would be covered under the terms "unprovoked harm, violence, killing, extermination" wouldn't it? You might consider leaving the reference to hunting out.

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

Good point. I'll take it out. Thanks!

Good grief, if you don't give the robots the same rights, they'll rise up in revolution, and I ain't getting involved in that war.

Noting that this legislation applies only to natural biological sapient speciesI understand I'm being rather dense here, but "this" refers simply to the proposal under discussion, correct? Not WA law in general?

Perhaps, in light of Ambassador Kildarno's comment, a parenthetical comment could be added; I am incapable of phrasing anything remotely coherent at the moment, unfortunately, but something about not precluding the possibility for states to grant these rights to other sentient beings.

A title that better illustrates the proposal's magnitude seems beneficial as well, as the proposal not only recognizes sentience but also grants rights to those biological creatures that possess it. "Rights of Sentient Beings" seems possible to be taken by a bill of rights or suchlike, "Equal Rights for Sentient Beings" too polemical...

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

Feedback welcome:

[HR/Significant]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that the recognition of the rights of sapients under international law remains a contentious issue within these halls;

Applauding the efforts of nations to extend essential rights and freedoms to non-human sapients in their own territories, and to lobby on behalf of non-human sapients on the global stage;

Affirming that all <non-savory> sapient creatures deserve the same rights and freedoms extended to humans, and that all <untasty> sentient beings are deserving of protection under international law;

Noting that this legislation applies only to natural biological sapient species:

Defines "sapience" as independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others;

Defines "sentience" as the ability to perceive consciousness or self-awareness, an intelligence that does not necessarily rise to the level of sapience;

Declares that member nations shall determine which biological species residing in their own borders possess sentient or sapient qualities, on the condition that no national government shall arbitrarily ignore or dismiss valid, confirmed scientific evidence for the sentience or sapience of any non-human species in making that determination, <with the understanding that the WA will not violate or degrade existing laws and/or norms of conduct that have heretofore existed within said national government(s)>

<Requests> member states to extend rights and freedoms, on a par with those guaranteed to humans under international law, to all sapient biological species under their jurisdiction;

<Requests> member states to take all prudent and necessary measures to protect all <other-than-delicious> sentient creatures under their jurisdiction from deliberate, unprovoked harm, violence, killings, or extermination.Keeping in mind, of course, that for the purposes of this legislation, sentience is being lumped together with sapience because on a whole "sentience" is a less offensive term, and sure to draw much less hysterical opposition as the last biological sapients proposal to reach the floor. Any input on the definitions for "sentience" and "sapience," as well as the legal ramifications of this legislation, would be especially welcomed.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the World Assembly


Proposed changed are in <> brackets, above

This is a rare occurence that I'm of the opinion that this legislation gives nations too many rights. I would prefer the whole establish-a-committee, get-committee-to-declare-species-sapient across the entire WA.

Just my two cents.

*The Proposal*:mp5:

Simply not a fan. There are more important things that the WA could be addressing than the rights of human-like creatures. And no, I don't mean global warming!

I understand I'm being rather dense here, but "this" refers simply to the proposal under discussion, correct?Yes.

Perhaps, in light of Ambassador Kildarno's comment, a parenthetical comment could be added; I am incapable of phrasing anything remotely coherent at the moment, unfortunately, but something about not precluding the possibility for states to grant these rights to other sentient beings.I believe Amb. Kildarno was joking, and the suggested language is unnecessary besides. The WA protecting the rights of one group does not mean nations cannot protect the rights of others. If we passed a gay rights act, would we have to include a disclaimer stating that the resolution doesn't affect women's rights laws of member states? I think not.

A title that better illustrates the proposal's magnitude seems beneficial as well, as the proposal not only recognizes sentience but also grants rights to those biological creatures that possess it. "Rights of Sentient Beings" seems possible to be taken by a bill of rights or suchlike, "Equal Rights for Sentient Beings" too polemical...We will entertain any and all suggestions for title, and we appreciate yours. Others wishing to contribute should note that we are looking for a name that won't immediately turn off the "only humans exist" crowd.

Proposed changed are in <> brackets, aboveHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA No.

This is a rare occurence that I'm of the opinion that this legislation gives nations too many rights. I would prefer the whole establish-a-committee, get-committee-to-declare-species-sapient across the entire WA.We are not lazy legislators, and we will not outsource our legislative implementation to a committee. We like to think we can have one issue before this body that can be resolved by means other than just throwing bureaucracy at it. I don't even know why we admit the thousands of members to the WA to implement our laws in their borders if we distrust them so much. Including provisos for national implementation, like mandating that they do not ignore valid scientific research when determining which species or sapient or sentient, is an entirely legitimate approach to enforcing this mandate. Perhaps there are other provisos you can suggest to prevent further abuse?

*The Proposal*:mp5:

Simply not a fan. There are more important things that the WA could be addressing than the rights of human-like creatures. And no, I don't mean global warming!Well, given that you profess to declare for the WA what its legislative priorities should be, maybe you should open a thread addressing a more pressing issue?

We eagerly await your reply.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the World Assembly

We will entertain any and all suggestions for title, and we appreciate yours. Others wishing to contribute should note that we are looking for a name that won't immediately turn off the "only humans exist" crowd."Rights of Living Beings" sounds comparatively inoffensive, the only problem being its arguable departure from the point. Thanks for the clarification on the other point, however: I have no objections to the legislation as it stands and Plutoni will support it should it come to vote.

-Plutonian ambassador Raymond Gardner

just throwing bureaucracy at it...Including provisos for national implementation, like mandating that they do not ignore valid scientific research when determining which species or sapient or sentient, is an entirely legitimate approach to enforcing this mandate.

Isn't your form of implementation actually increasing bureaucracy though? Having separate national committees/groups/agencies/whatever to evaluate, research, debate, and declare species sapient for all of the thousands of member nations that you commented on. Why bother with this extra bureaucracy if, by your legislation, they are all eventually going to come to the same conclusion? Science doesn't have national boundaries--if one species is sapient in one nation, it had better be in the next. And if that is not the case, then I have very serious problems with this proposal.

This will reduce inefficieny and political rivalry, because we won't be sitting around with thumbs up our asses waiting for the Sentient Organisms Federation of Handjobistan to send us their sentient species list, then cross-checking it with the reports from the Intelligent Species Ministry of Wingdangdoodletopia, and then having to reference the latest sentience lists from Omigodtheykilledkenny (whose list still only says "no sentient species present").

Lazy legislating would be setting up a committee, then freeing it to the world without a mandate or guideline for operation. Organizing a World Assembly Commission on Sentient Species and then giving it rules and missions takes a little more.

The name could even be more intelligent, I came up with that in five seconds. A wider-spanning committee, which could be charged with expanded powers and responsibilities in later legislation, would also serve to reduce bureacratic waste by being broad enough to handle multiple tasks.

Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant

No. Just no.

No. Just no.
Why? Just why? Speak, human! Explain yourself.

*mutters* Brain the size of a cantaloupe and the best you can come up with is "No. Just no"...

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

Isn't your form of implementation actually increasing bureaucracy though? Having separate national committees/groups/agencies/whatever to evaluate, research, debate, and declare species sapient for all of the thousands of member nations that you commented on. Why bother with this extra bureaucracy if, by your legislation, they are all eventually going to come to the same conclusion? Science doesn't have national boundaries--if one species is sapient in one nation, it had better be in the next. And if that is not the case, then I have very serious problems with this proposal.Actually, no, this does not require nations to set up new bureaucracies to determine local sapience, especially as the task could just as competently be given to existing bureaucrats. As to the reason for local implementation, we like to think member states have a greater understanding of local biological species than some WA gnome somewhere. We do not require member states to make identical determinations, but we do require them to make a fair and reasoned judgment and to take all available evidence into account. A subspecies of Disco-Dancing Dog may be considered sapient in one nation while a very closely related subspecies may be considered simply sentient in another. We have no problems with this result, if it were the case. But forgive us if we think that a formally deputized commission of the World Assembly debating the sentient properties of creeping sludge in the Heartbreak Hotel of Evil Elvis Impersonators is a bit excessive.

We may have been too hasty when we wrote off a committee outright, however. Try to convince us more. One more point to consider: the public is already hostile to recognizing sapient rights, as evidenced by that disastrous 2005 vote, so how would a commission being given power to tell them which species to grant rights to swing with them?

Actually, no, this does not require nations to set up new bureaucracies to determine local sapience, especially as the task could just as competently be given to existing bureaucrats.

This could be solved by establishing Commission offices/departments/sub-basements in member governments to deal with that nation specifically. Most of the employees would logically be from that nation, with training and liaisions with the WA and international community.

As to the reason for local implementation, we like to think member states have a greater understanding of local biological species than some WA gnome somewhere. We do not require member states to make identical determinations, but we do require them to make a fair and reasoned judgment and to take all available evidence into account. A subspecies of Disco-Dancing Dog may be considered sapient in one nation while a very closely related subspecies may be considered simply sentient in another.

Identical determinations, no. But it's much easier if there's a single commission with departments in all nations, with a standardized system of classification, operation, and investigation, to compare and distinguish between the Lower Whackistani Disco-Dancing Dog (canis discadancus stultorum) and its intelligent cousin, the Wall Street Investment Banker Disco-Dancing Dog (canis discodancus indymackus).

We have no problems with this result, if it were the case. But forgive us if we think that a formally deputized commission of the World Assembly debating the sentient properties of creeping sludge in the Heartbreak Hotel of Evil Elvis Impersonators is a bit excessive.

Excessive, sure, but how many intelligent species do you come across defrosting your fridge? If that sludge under the leftover pilaf asks my opinion on Sartre, you can be sure I'll be calling the Commissioner to come check my fridge. That's just keeping them busy.

We may have been too hasty when we wrote off a committee outright, however. Try to convince us more. One more point to consider: the public is already hostile to recognizing sapient rights, as evidenced by that disastrous 2005 vote, so how would a commission being given power to tell them which species to grant rights to swing with them?

Resistance to bias. An international committee would be less likely to be swayed by cultural prejudices or regional differences, and would focus on the science. Further, the breakdown of the committee into national units would include member-citizens in the process, which supports democracy and freedom and super-fluffy stuff like bunnies and flag-waving.

Wens Foroun
Symposium Subjugant

We may have been too hasty when we wrote off a committee outright, however. Try to convince us more. One more point to consider: the public is already hostile to recognizing sapient rights, as evidenced by that disastrous 2005 vote, so how would a commission being given power to tell them which species to grant rights to swing with them?

So don't do it that way. Give the commission the power to offer expert advice (in public, in a way that would be awfully embarrassing to ignore, but we don't have to tell them that).

So don't do it that way. Give the commission the power to offer expert advice (in public, in a way that would be awfully embarrassing to ignore, but we don't have to tell them that).

And maybe have it keep a master-list of which types of being are considered sapient where, so that people who are thinking about international travel would only have to check in a single place to see how every nation that they might want to visit regards their kind... and so that national governments could check the existing consenus on any beings of types previously unfamiliar to them that might arrive within their jursidictions...

This could be solved by establishing Commission offices/departments/sub-basements in member governments to deal with that nation specifically. Most of the employees would logically be from that nation, with training and liaisions with the WA and international community.And how is this "less inefficient" than simply delegating the responsibility to member states? As far as we are concerned, this would create much more unnecessary bureaucracy than what would be required by separate national determinations.

Identical determinations, no. But it's much easier if there's a single commission with departments in all nations, with a standardized system of classification, operation, and investigation, to compare and distinguish between the Lower Whackistani Disco-Dancing Dog (canis discadancus stultorum) and its intelligent cousin, the Wall Street Investment Banker Disco-Dancing Dog (canis discodancus indymackus). If two nations are examining two different subspecies, how necessarily would a central office make the determination easier? Aside from comparing similar research, that is, in which case, why couldn't the scientists just look it up themselves?

(Although I did get a kick out of the scientific names.)

Resistance to bias. An international committee would be less likely to be swayed by cultural prejudices or regional differences, and would focus on the science. Further, the breakdown of the committee into national units would include member-citizens in the process, which supports democracy and freedom and super-fluffy stuff like bunnies and flag-waving.It seems to me requiring each nation to set up their own local WA office (ostensibly so they can be tyrannized in the comfort of their own homes =P) would come off as more overbearing, not less.

And how is this "less inefficient" than simply delegating the responsibility to member states? As far as we are concerned, this would create much more unnecessary bureaucracy than what would be required by separate national determinations.

Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, whether done by a centralized WA office or by independent sub-entities. Having a central office allows determinations to be more balanced and completely uniform, rather than hoping national legislators will be fair with their decision-making. A WA agency would be subject to the wishes of all member nations, not simply the interests of one nation--or one person even, if that nation is monarchial.

If two nations are examining two different subspecies, how necessarily would a central office make the determination easier? Aside from comparing similar research, that is, in which case, why couldn't the scientists just look it up themselves?.

A central office allows everyone a say in declaring that subspecies sapient. Without it, nations could do nothing but pursue the interests of the most governmentally dominant sapient species in the country.

Say one nation has two highly intelligent species: A and B. Species A happens to control the government, while Species B has little political power. Species A releases several "scientific journals" documenting all the reasons Species B isn't sapient to maintain their political dominance. Thus, Species B has no rights, whether granted by the nation or the WA. (Yes, I realize this is possible to do now, but if we're going to write a proposal about sapience, why not prevent this?)

Having a central office places a burden of legitimacy on these scientific documents, as they wouldn't survive the debate to classify Species B non-sapient. A WA agency controlling sapience classifications is much less vulnerable to national and regional pressures to declare a species one way or the other.

And how is this "less inefficient" than simply delegating the responsibility to member states? As far as we are concerned, this would create much more unnecessary bureaucracy than what would be required by separate national determinations.

If two nations are examining two different subspecies, how necessarily would a central office make the determination easier? Aside from comparing similar research, that is, in which case, why couldn't the scientists just look it up themselves?

The Jevians have said it much better than we could.

It seems to me requiring each nation to set up their own local WA office (ostensibly so they can be tyrannized in the comfort of their own homes =P) would come off as more overbearing, not less.

As opposed to a national ministry? The World Assembly doesn't have to be a monstrous, invasive group of Nanny-Staters if we construct the legal language appropriately.

W.F.

Why? Just why? Speak, human! Explain yourself.

*mutters* Brain the size of a cantaloupe and the best you can come up with is "No. Just no"...

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

Animals are animals. They have a place in this world.

Right next to the mash potatoes.

Animals are animals. They have a place in this world.

Right next to the mash potatoes.

I totally agree. There's nothing more delicious than a nicely sauteed whitefish filet with a lemon burre blanc sauce.

but when my whitefish filet is asking to discuss the finer points of Emile Durkheim's philosophy, I wonder if it's just an animal and not something more.

W.F.

There was a change at the Palentine delegation. Insted of the usual scene of a good but unwholesome senator slumped over on his desk in a drunken stupor, a large wheeled glass aqaurium stood. inside the aquarium were three frolicing dolphins. At first some of the delegates on the floor smiled because everybody knows that dolphins are cute cuddly and beloved by children everywhere. Soon the smiles turned to shock as they realized that these were the infamous Palentine Naval dolphins, the foul mouthed scourges of the southern seas. The delegates could only sit in shocked awe as they could hear the foul epitaths being spouted from the mouths of these foul creatures. One of the dolphins swam over to a waterproof mike on the auarium and said,

Its<nasty word> about<foul word><censored> time that one of you<bleeping><bleep> wankers finally <bleeping> write a <unbelivably gross word>good <bad word> proposal to <yowzah><filthy oath> recognize<anatomically imposible sex act> sentience. This ,bleep><bleeping> proposal abso<censored>lutely makes <very bad word> sense."

Menwhile the other dolphins began to speak to the crowd,

"Where's the <censored> Thessadorian Ambassador. I wanna<bleeping> see her<bleeps>!"

"Hey Baby! Wanna <bleep><bleeping><foul word><censored>?

Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, whether done by a centralized WA office or by independent sub-entities. Having a central office allows determinations to be more balanced and completely uniform, rather than hoping national legislators will be fair with their decision-making.No, not "hoping" they'll be fair. Requiring them to be fair. There's quite a difference.

A central office allows everyone a say in declaring that subspecies sapient. Without it, nations could do nothing but pursue the interests of the most governmentally dominant sapient species in the country.

Say one nation has two highly intelligent species: A and B. Species A happens to control the government, while Species B has little political power. Species A releases several "scientific journals" documenting all the reasons Species B isn't sapient to maintain their political dominance. Thus, Species B has no rights, whether granted by the nation or the WA. (Yes, I realize this is possible to do now, but if we're going to write a proposal about sapience, why not prevent this?)

Having a central office places a burden of legitimacy on these scientific documents, as they wouldn't survive the debate to classify Species B non-sapient. A WA agency controlling sapience classifications is much less vulnerable to national and regional pressures to declare a species one way or the other.You seem to have forgotten entirely: nations are not given free reign to act arbitrarily in the denial of sapient rights. They have to take all available scientific data into account, and make a fair and reasonable decision. As long as the process is fair, there need be no meddling by an excessive committee. Scientists can reasonably disagree about the sapience or sentience of certain species, and in the event of dueling scientific findings, it serves everyone's best interests to allow nations to review all the evidence and make their own judgment -- especially where local subspecies are concerned -- rather than requiring all nations to adopt one brand of science over another.

Besides, if an international committee decided Species A was sapient and Species B was not, there would be just as many broken hearts than if a national government did the same, now wouldn't there?

I could sure use a break. Do your dolphins know any sea shanties, Senator Sulla?

I could sure use a break. Do your dolphins know any sea shanties, Senator Sulla?

At this point the dolphins started to sing in three part harmony....

"Tis advertised in Boston, New York and Buffalo,
Five hundred brave Americans, a-whaling for to go, singing

Blow, ye winds in the morning, And blow, ye winds, high-i!
Clear away your running gear, And blow, ye winds, high-o!

They send you to New Bedord, that famous whaling port,
And give you to some land-sharks to board and fit you out.

They send you to a boarding-house, there for a time to dwell;
The thieves they there are thicker than the other side of hell!

Blow, ye winds in the morning, And blow, ye winds, high-i!
Clear away your running gear, And blow, ye winds, high-o!

They tell you of the clipper-ships-a-going in and out,
And say you'll take five hundred whales before you're six months out.

It's now we're out to sea, my boys, the wind comes on to blow;
One half the watch is sick on deck, the other half below.

Next comes the running rigging, which you're all supposed to know;
'Tis "Lay aloft, you son-of-a-gun, or overboard you go!"

Blow, ye winds in the morning, And blow, ye winds, high-i!
Clear away your running gear, And blow, ye winds, high-o!

The Skipper's on the quarter-deck a-squinting at the sails,
When up aloft the lookout sights a school of whales.

"Now clear away the boats, my boys, and after him we'll travel,
But if you get too near his fluke, he'll kick you to the devil!"

Now we have got him turned up, we tow him alongside;
We over with our blubber-hooks and rob him of his hide.

But now that our old ship is full and we don't give a damn,
We'll bend on all our stu'nsails and sail for Yankee land.

When we get home, our ship made fast, and we get through our sailing,
A winding glass around we'll pass and damn this blubber whaling!

Blow, ye winds in the morning, And blow, ye winds, high-i!
Clear away your running gear, And blow, ye winds, high-o!"

No, not "hoping" they'll be fair. Requiring them to be fair. There's quite a difference.

You are simply requiring them to follow "confirmed scientific evidence." Nations can "find scientific evidence," "confirm it," and then do what they will with regard to sapiency.

You seem to have forgotten entirely: nations are not given free reign to act arbitrarily in the denial of sapient rights. They have to take all available scientific data into account, and make a fair and reasonable decision. As long as the process is fair, there need be no meddling by an excessive committee. Scientists can reasonably disagree about the sapience or sentience of certain species, and in the event of dueling scientific findings, it serves everyone's best interests to allow nations to review all the evidence and make their own judgment -- especially where local subspecies are concerned -- rather than requiring all nations to adopt one brand of science over another.

And you seem to have forgotten entirely: nation's are being given the right to define their own "science" in your proposal. Every scientist of species A may be in agreement that species B is non-sapient. That doesn't make it right. However, in that nation, with so many scientists in agreement, its seems "fair and reasonable" to agree with them, doesn't it?

Instead, with a central office, this politically-motivated science would be under well-deserved scrutiny.

It is true that scientists can legitimately disagree on the sapiency of some species, but your legislation gives them the power to do much more than disagree on simply sub-species: it gives nations the power to freely deny sapiency rights to any species that the government might have a grudge against.

Besides, if an international committee decided Species A was sapient and Species B was not, there would be just as many broken hearts than if a national government did the same, now wouldn't there?

The difference here is intent: the international committee found them legitimately non-sapient; the nation did so out of political greed. Besides, I have a feeling that if being declared non-sapient brings broken hearts to the members of Species B, they're probably sapient anyway.

And you seem to have forgotten entirely: nation's are being given the right to define their own "science" in your proposal.
They were also given that exact same right by UN Resolution #166, which your signature indicates you submitted, so I'm very interested in what Damascene moment has prompted this change of heart regarding policy.

You are simply requiring them to follow "confirmed scientific evidence.""Confirmed"? As in, a different set of scientists conducted the same tests and yielded the same results? Is there a better word for this? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'd really like to know if there is a better way to describe it.

Apart from that, is there a specific reason you assume nations would be more influenced by politics than would an international committee? Other than the typical "the gnomes are perfect" argument? And while you continue to rail about nations short-changing undesirable sapients, what changes to the language would you suggest in order to assure a fair and unbiased result? Because whether we retain national determination, or replace it with that of an international committee, the bias issue will have to be dealt with. We are not going to assume that just because the WA establishes a committee, it will always produce completely fair and bias-free decisions. That's Godmoding.

They were also given that exact same right by UN Resolution #166, which your signature indicates you submitted, so I'm very interested in what Damascene moment has prompted this change of heart regarding policy.

Firstly, just as a note: I didn't write Resolution #166, I submitted it because I had the time to campaign for it.

Also, there is no change of heart here. I do support legitimate scientific research that is unbiased, without the motivation to unfairly suppress others, namely Species B in my example. If you want to call Species A's politically motivated, forged findings "science," go ahead, but if we have the opportunity to shut out these types of instances by placing a burden of proof on them through a WA committee, I'm all for it.

I do understand that WA committees may not be perfect, but they are less likely to be influenced by national or regional pressures by its very nature as an international committee. It would be much more difficult to politically skew the scientific consensus of a WA committee than a national board of sapience, simply because of the increased magnitude of people to convince, competing ideas, and not to mention the existence of actually true, provable, scientific rationale from other members of the international community.

An increased amount of lobbying would likely produce more politicized decisions, not less. Your assertions are something less than reassuring, and your refusal to offer any helpful suggestions to reduce the likelihood of abuse is not much less than infuriating. Thank you for your input.

The government of the emperor of Urgench wonders if a third way is not possible, in which nations do in the majority of cases decide, on the basis of sound science, on sentience of species, but in cases of great controversy a simply constituted, ad hoc, W.A. commission of appeals could decide the matter?

yours e.t.c. ,

Sigh...

My resistance to committees and commissions and appellate bodies is based mostly on the fact that I wanted to keep this simple and didn't want to clog the text with a bunch of red tape for determining which is sapient and not. How will this do?:

Declares that member nations shall determine which biological species residing in their own borders possess sentient or sapient qualities, provided that the process involved is fair and even-handed and excludes potential conflicts of interest, that all available valid and confirmed scientific evidence is taken into account, and that denials of sentient or sapient status can be appealed to a higher, disinterested official or body;I'd like to ask once again for any final input on this, because I feel like submitting this sometime this week, just so we can have something else to vote on.

I think this will do the trick. Although I do not have much against committees and commissions and so.

But it is a bit unclear what a higher, disinterested official or body is. But maybe the gnomes can resolve this? Or is it the whole WA?

Wish you success with this proposal.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Sigh...

Declares that member nations shall determine which biological species residing in their own borders possess sentient or sapient qualities, provided that the process involved is fair and even-handed and excludes potential conflicts of interest, that all available valid and confirmed scientific evidence is taken into account, and that denials of sentient or sapient status can be appealed to a higher, disinterested official or body;
Heh...

Let me pass the World Assembly Economic Union first. I'll include something about the free movement of sapient beings for the purpose of performing labor.

Then you can have yours say something like:

AUTHORIZES the World Assembly Free Trade Commission (WAFTC) to make final and binding determinations regarding the sentient and/or sapient status of all species residing within the territory of WA member nations...

:D

Declares that member nations shall determine which biological species residing in their own borders possess sentient or sapient qualities, provided that the process involved is fair and even-handed and excludes potential conflicts of interest, that all available valid and confirmed scientific evidence is taken into account, and that denials of sentient or sapient status can be appealed to a higher, disinterested official or body;

I like this better, though denials/approvals of status should be viewed with equal checks and balances.

Though I think the "higher, disinterested official or body" phrase is probably too vague to really ensure that these decisions will be made wholly objectively. At least for what my opinion is worth, I'm not sure if I'll be totally supporting this without some of the red tape you are averse to.

Let me pass the World Assembly Economic Union first. I'll include something about the free movement of sapient beings for the purpose of performing labor.This... isn't a terrible idea. It'd be nice to limit the number of committees by simple giving them numerous tasks. Makes it easier to track them.

This... isn't a terrible idea. It'd be nice to limit the number of committees by simple giving them numerous tasks. Makes it easier to track them.
One Committee to rule them all, One Committee to find them,
One Committee to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Yelda...

"Confirmed"? As in, a different set of scientists conducted the same tests and yielded the same results? Is there a better word for this? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'd really like to know if there is a better way to describe it.

The term you seek is "reproducible" although it doesn't really roll off the tongue, more tumbles like a sack of potatoes.

Glad to see this issue being worked on...still. ;)

Submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sentients) now, so get off your lazy asses and approve! Will keep you updated on its progress.

The government of the emperor of Urgench wishes the mission for SchutteGod much luck with getting their proposal fully approved. We will heartily recomend an approval to our regional delegate for their excellent resolution.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sentients) now, so get off your lazy asses and approve! Will keep you updated on its progress.

As much as history is telling me I'm going to dread the debate on this, you've got my approval.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congratulatory wishes will be accepted for the time being, but if you have official remarks for the vote (likely tomorrow), please keep them for the new thread. To be started, er, sometime tonight.

The government of the emperor of Urgench congratulates the most highly esteemed ambassador for SchutteGod on their marvelous success. We only hope the w.a. sees the eminent wisdom of this resolution and votes for it unanimously.

yours e.t.c.

Congratulumations to all the Shemps on quorum.

I too object to "non-natural" or synthetic sapience being left out. Why does their creation type matter. Does this exclude AI? Clones? Cyborgs?

Does this mean WA nations cannot eat meat, hunt animals etc?!

HOORAY!
Our hospitality budget will cover a round of drinks in Strangers' Bar for all Delegates who approved this proposal, and all of SchutteGod mission's members' drinks there this evening...


Borrin o Redwood,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for
High Council of Clans,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed.

I too object to "non-natural" or synthetic sapience being left out. Why does their creation type matter. Does this exclude AI? Clones? Cyborgs?
Does this mean WA nations cannot eat meat, hunt animals etc?!I thought I told you to save it for the real thread? Please lock this.