[PASSED] Rights of Sapient Species [Now with FAQ]

[Luna Amore]

Since a Repeal is already up, I might as well begin drafting a replacement. Repealed. Here is the replacement.

Please offer your harshest criticism. I apparently didn't get enough the last time.

Also note that this is a complete Work in Progress, and is definitely not the final draft.
This might be the Final Draft, if nothing else is offered as criticism.

Rights of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines:

• "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to:
  • Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;
  • Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;
  • Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.
• "Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, or unless said rights are specifically probihibited by an unrepealed WA resolution passed prior to this resolution. No member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to humans below the age of majority and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the sapient beings below the age of majority and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, or unless said rights are specifically probihibited by an unrepealed WA resolution passed prior to this resolution. Age of majority is to be determined for individual species based on equivalent degree of maturation.

Requires that in defining legal age of consent and legal age of marriage, member nations must define legal age for individual species; the legal age cannot be lower than the average age of onset of reproductive maturation for that species, and all legal ages between species should be set at an equivalent degree of maturation. Beings that do not reproduce sexually are exempted from this clause.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines:

• "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to:
  • Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;
  • Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;
  • Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.
• "Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to humans below the age of majority and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the sapient beings below the age of majority and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights. Age of majority is to be determined for individual species based on equivalent degree of maturation.

Requires that in defining legal age of consent and legal age of marriage, member nations must define legal age for individual species; the legal age cannot be lower than the average age of onset of reproductive maturation for that species, and all legal ages between species should be set at an equivalent degree of maturation. Beings that do not reproduce sexually are exempted from this clause.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

• "Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
  
• "Appropriate judgement" as a sensible course of action or considered response.
  
• "Sentience" as the ability to experience subjectively, feel, and/or perceive.
  
• "Perceive" as to recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of.
  
• "Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights.

Requires that in defining legal age of consent and legal age of marriage, member nations must define legal age for individual species; the legal age cannot be lower than the average age of onset of reproductive maturation for that species, and all legal ages between species should be set at an equivalent degree of maturation. Beings that do not reproduce naturally are exempted from this clause.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

"Appropriate judgement" as a sensible course of action or considered response.

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights.

Requires that in defining legal age of majority, member nations must define legal age of majority for individual species; the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of onset of reproductive maturation for that species. Beings that do not reproduce naturally are exempted from this clause.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

"Appropriate judgement" as a sensible course of action or considered response.

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights.

Requires that in defining legal age of majority, member nations must define legal age of majority for individual species; the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of sexual maturity for that species.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans. Tests must not be based on the anatomy or genetics of a species, but shall be based solely on the mental capabilities of species tested.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

[Appropriate judgement definition needed]

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

Frequently Asked Questions:


The definition of Sapient Being is too broad. Do you really want to give rights to [insert animal here]?

First of all, the definition requires sapient beings to demonstrate a considered response or sensible course of action. In my opinion, only a very small group of animals could potentially demonstrate consideration of a response, and even those are arguable. Given that testing for sapience is ultimately up to your nation, as long as your nation abides by the terms specified in the resolution, your nation cannot reach the conclusion that say, cows are sapient unless your nation is absolutely convinced cows are capable of considering a response.

But, let's imagine, for some reason, your nation does believe animal X meets the definition of sapient being in this resolution. By what right does your nation discriminate against feeling, conscious, reasoning beings? You lose all ability to justify denying them rights if they are sapient.

Isn't this forced roleplay? In my nation's universe, humans are the only sapient beings.

No, this resolution does not force roleplay. That's illegal, so I wrote the resolution in such a way that there isn't even one clause that actually says non-human sapients exist. Additionally, I put the burden of finding sapients on individual nations specifically to allow some nations to roleplay not finding any except humans.

This clause does not allow nations who have non-humans to escape from compliance. If they find a sapient, which has a rigid definition, they must give it equal rights.

What if a nation tries to define the ability to reason in a way that excludes non-humans?

It would be extremely difficult to do so, especially since the sapience test must be applied equally to humans and non-humans, and must be based solely on mental capacity. It is theoretically possible, but to define reason in such a way as to exclude a being equally as reasonable as a human would risk excluding humans from the definition of sapient beings. Nevertheless, I must leave the determination of sapience up to individual nations to avoid forced roleplay.

And frankly, if you can work your way out of this resolution, you probably worked yourself out of everything else too.

Doesn't this duplicate CoCR? The mods ruled that CoCR covers non-humans.

First of all, this came up last time, and my attention was the same, and my resolution passed. Second,

"Inhabitants of member states" isn't defined in CoCR, and certainly doesn't extend to "animals" (such as say, dolphins). This resolution would require member states to grant rights to any sapient beings (not necessarily saying dolphins are sapient, just that if they were found to be sapient, you'd have to include them) found within their borders, even if they were not considered inhabitants.

For a further example, consider alien tourists from non-member states. They are sapient beings, granted the protections of this resolution, yet they are not inhabitants of member states, so not covered by CoCR.

Why did you define sapience based on the individual, rather than the whole species? What if 50% of a species is sapient, but the rest aren't, does that mean 50% aren't given these rights?

As Wrapper (who, for the record doesn't necessarily agree with me) said: "Say an individual synthetic form, a robot or android if you will, achieves sapience. Your choices, if you were to define sapience by species, are, classify all synthetics as non-sapient, and therefore allow the denial of rights to this individual, or classify all synthetics as sapient, which would mean the imprisonment of children if they let the batteries in their little Robogotchi toys die. While the latter is just silly, the former is undesirable as well. Just because he or she is the first and only synthetic to achieve sapience, does not mean his or her rights should be abridged."
To avoid these problems, I defined it based on the individual.

Protection of Sapient Rights was Significant. Why is this Strong?

Because Protection of Sapient Rights only gave rights to Sapient beings. Rights of Sapient Species goes further, giving rights not just to sapient beings, but to the mentally disabled and children. RoSS also includes a clause setting a minimum age of consent and age of marriage, which introduces totally new rights rather than just expanding the coverage of already given rights. Given these additions, I felt the increased effect should be reflected by a strength increase, and also felt after reading the rules for Strong resolutions that RoSS met the qualifications for Strong, by granting rights to a very broad class of beings.

[The United States of the Outer Rim]

Be it known that, as stated previously in our reply to the first piece of legislation, The USOR will continue to attempt to further this noble cause.

-Quadratus'ivron

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Relying on the ability to perceive subjectively to be eligible for these protections simply means that every tinpot dictator will simply declare himself the only provably perceiving subject under his nation's laws (after all, he can't prove any different, can he), and therefore only he is to be considered "sapient" under WA law.

[Tinfect]

OOC:

[DRAFT] Protection of Sapient Rights 2: Electric Boogaloo

FTFY

On a more serious note, you are going to want to actually create a World Assembly definition for Sapience.

I'll reply with more when I don't feel like shit.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Relying on the ability to perceive subjectively to be eligible for these protections simply means that every tinpot dictator will simply declare himself the only provably perceiving subject under his nation's laws (after all, he can't prove any different, can he), and therefore only he is to be considered "sapient" under WA law.

"The ambassador is correct, but I am unaware how to fix this problem. Such an insane dictator could also declare themselves the only one capable of using logic, or could use national laws to define human to mean 'garbage can' (As I am not aware of any WA resolution defining human). How do you propose I prevent such illogical misuses of the definitions?"

[Atomic Utopia]

OOC: Relying on the ability to perceive subjectively to be eligible for these protections simply means that every tinpot dictator will simply declare himself the only provably perceiving subject under his nation's laws (after all, he can't prove any different, can he), and therefore only he is to be considered "sapient" under WA law.

"The ambassador is correct, but I am unaware how to fix this problem. Such an insane dictator could also declare themselves the only one capable of using logic, or could use national laws to define human to mean 'garbage can' (As I am not aware of any WA resolution defining human). How do you propose I prevent such illogical misuses of the definitions?"

Define every last word that is critical.

I know it will be hard, but at least it will solve the problem.

[Mundiferrum]

OOC: Relying on the ability to perceive subjectively to be eligible for these protections simply means that every tinpot dictator will simply declare himself the only provably perceiving subject under his nation's laws (after all, he can't prove any different, can he), and therefore only he is to be considered "sapient" under WA law.

"The ambassador is correct, but I am unaware how to fix this problem. Such an insane dictator could also declare themselves the only one capable of using logic, or could use national laws to define human to mean 'garbage can' (As I am not aware of any WA resolution defining human). How do you propose I prevent such illogical misuses of the definitions?"

We disagree that the ambassador from Sierra Lyricalia here is correct (thus why we removed the argument from our repeal) since any reasonable citizen would realize that a dictator who believes himself the only person in existence would easily get overthrown -- people usually believe in a consensus reality. We do not believe the omniscience argument from the repeal could be argued down as such, though, because evidence shows that people do have the capacity to believe in living gods.

Anywhoo, so far we're still compiling all the important details for a definition like this, but there is one thing we'd like to add: that a sapient being be alive to be so considered. By alive, we don't exactly mean organically living and breathing -- what we mean is that the organism (by the way, instead of entity, we'd prefer "individual", "person", or even "organism" since entity can be all too easily interpreted as a group of sapients -- at least those words can run on precedence) has all the necessary processes to be considered biologically alive (tends toward homemostasis, may possess the capacity to reproduce, etc). We think most sapient beings who'll actually benefit from these rights will be covered by that definition -- at the top of our head, those excluded are boxed-in consciousnesses (which would probably not recognize those rights) and purely divine spirits (which would probably not need those rights).

EDIT: Quick question that we just noticed from Herby's reply in the older thread: How the heck would multiple species apply laws dependent on age of majority or age of consent? Coz' I hear that eighteen year old high elves are babies, and eeew.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This is a huge bloody minefield. We know that there are nations made up of sentient members of many species which in other nations are not sentient. For example, the sapient chickens. It's a whole great morass of species wankery which is best left unsettled and untouched by the WA IMO. I have no particular tendency to exclude individual humans just so we don't have include all horses because one nation is made up of Mister Ed and his family. Let those of us who role play humans, continue to extend rights and protections to humans and let the talking amoebae do their own thing, and if they so wish they can RP that human rights resolutions also apply to their own species in their own nations.

[Thanathoria]

The Thanathorian government applauds this incentive, as already the first resolution has singlehandedly raised worker efficiency to 96%. According to studies made by our chief sociologists, workers are kept much better in line when just for swearing the now-declared sapient corporation can sue them for spiritual or emotional abuse. Thanathorian officials are also contemplating if war could be a viable industry if rocketing buildings (corp hq's) could mean "sexual abuse".

[Excidium Planetis]

"The ambassador is correct, but I am unaware how to fix this problem. Such an insane dictator could also declare themselves the only one capable of using logic, or could use national laws to define human to mean 'garbage can' (As I am not aware of any WA resolution defining human). How do you propose I prevent such illogical misuses of the definitions?"

We disagree that the ambassador from Sierra Lyricalia here is correct (thus why we removed the argument from our repeal) since any reasonable citizen would realize that a dictator who believes himself the only person in existence would easily get overthrown -- people usually believe in a consensus reality. We do not believe the omniscience argument from the repeal could be argued down as such, though, because evidence shows that people do have the capacity to believe in living gods.

Anywhoo, so far we're still compiling all the important details for a definition like this, but there is one thing we'd like to add: that a sapient being be alive to be so considered. By alive, we don't exactly mean organically living and breathing -- what we mean is that the organism (by the way, instead of entity, we'd prefer "individual", "person", or even "organism" since entity can be all too easily interpreted as a group of sapients -- at least those words can run on precedence) has all the necessary processes to be considered biologically alive (tends toward homemostasis, may possess the capacity to reproduce, etc). We think most sapient beings who'll actually benefit from these rights will be covered by that definition -- at the top of our head, those excluded are boxed-in consciousnesses (which would probably not recognize those rights) and purely divine spirits (which would probably not need those rights).

EDIT: Quick question that we just noticed from Herby's reply in the older thread: How the heck would multiple species apply laws dependent on age of majority or age of consent? Coz' I hear that eighteen year old high elves are babies, and eeew.

I said "physical entity" to exclude corporations (which do not actually physically exist). This could mean a group of organisms... such as the collective hivemind whose individual members are not sapient but which is sapient collectively. DO you have a problem with this?

And is there a GA resolution which specifically says 18 years? "Restrictions of Child Labor" just says "legal age of majority as defined in your nation".

OOC: Relying on the ability to perceive subjectively to be eligible for these protections simply means that every tinpot dictator will simply declare himself the only provably perceiving subject under his nation's laws (after all, he can't prove any different, can he), and therefore only he is to be considered "sapient" under WA law.

Also I realized the Clarifies Clause states that any sapience tests must be passable by the average human. Thus, the situation you outlined is not possible unless the dictator redefines either "passable" "average" or "human", in which case the dictator clearly can avoid compliance with nearly any GA resolution anyways.

Anyways TO DO LIST:

• Define "appropriate judgement"
• Make it so less than average but still not mentally disabled or immature sapients can still pass... perhaps make it to "passable by all healthy, normal, adult humans?"
• Self aware? A requirement, or not?
• Interspecies marriage... a repeal mentioned it. Should we force nations to allow it, or allow nations to either allow it or ban it as they see fit?

[Atomic Utopia]

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Define judgement as a variant (to avoid plagiarism) of the first definition here here

Physical entity seems a bit odd as I could argue that human thought etc. can be considered non physical using definition one, and because the human body is not capable of reasoning by itself without any of that I could argue that the human body is non sapient and the human brain is non physical, thus humans and other creatures of human comparable intellect can be cut open with rusty knives for *science* as much as I want.

That last argument is a bit of a stretch for creative compliance, but it is most certainly possible.

[Tinfect]

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

OOC:
This wouldn't be a quiet attempt to keep Artificial Intelligence from being defined as Sapient, would it? I think the League might have an issue with that.

[Mundiferrum]

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

OOC:
This wouldn't be a quiet attempt to keep Artificial Intelligence from being defined as Sapient, would it? I think the League might have an issue with that.

Thus why we support using an individual with the properties of biological life, not merely physical entities. I believe "individual" has precedent for not being group-of-folks based, while AI generally exhibit the characteristics of biological life in their own way (they reproduce, they try to keep a balance within themselves, they like growing -- couple that with sentience, and you're close). A collective hivemind would be complicated, yes, but only in the matter of what defines their sapience as a whole, and I don't exactly know how to answer that.

On your physical entity note: That still feels sketchy, since a corporation is composed of multiple physical beings...Would still prefer earlier suggested definition.

On your age of majority note: That's where the trouble comes in. Is age of majority defined by species, or by nation? If it is by nation, then we'll have an issue, since some species don't fully mature (or mature way before) the age where their nation's majority becomes full adults. That, I think, must be etched out clearly, lest we accidentally legalize baby elf rape.

Also I realized the Clarifies Clause states that any sapience tests must be passable by the average human. Thus, the situation you outlined is not possible unless the dictator redefines either "passable" "average" or "human", in which case the dictator clearly can avoid compliance with nearly any GA resolution anyways.

Well, if I assume this ridiculous scenario is even possible, the tinpot dictator could still say that all humans are non-sapients, but still give those humans their proper rights, while leaving all other species right-less (wrong?) -- we're not mandated by anything in WA law to not give rights to non-sapients anyway, and it won't be considered against this resolution, since they are following the resolution -- that they give rights to sapients (in this case, the lord of the land) -- while following all the other resolutions, in giving humans their rights anyway.

Hmm...these gnarly bits are starting to convince me that this resolution might not be feasible after all, at least as a one-off.

[Caracasus]

We have a couple of concerns here ambassador. Firstly, we agree with your aim. Sapient rights should be protected. However, the two main problems we can see occur here.

Namely, a definition of sapience applied to an individual, or to a group as a whole would run into difficulty when "Human rights" are applied to a separate species. It would not be outside the realms of probability to imagine a sentient creature that has a larval stage that a tiny fraction of individual larvae survive, followed by an adult stage where "sapience" is displayed. If some form of protection was offered to said larvae, it could drastically disrupt the population of the species, as every larvae would be afforded "human" rights. May we suggest that "human" rights are applied to sapient species where appropriate? The trouble with applying equality is that often if it is applied in a "one size fits all" fashion, you often wind up with more problems than you wish to solve. We recall a debate we had with another ambassador who decided that the provision of basic medicines was unequal "because only poorer nations would get the free medicines" (or words to those effect). It is important that differences between species are considered before rules meant for one species are applied universally to all.

We are also concerned that there is too much of an attempt to realistically define sapience in 3,000 characters. Our philosophers have (admittedly often as an attempt to draw out a research budget well over its allotted time) written entire treatises on sapience, and come to very little in the way of a conclusion. Perhaps you should mandate that nations must "consider any reasonable request to recognise sapience in another lifeform" or indeed, create a sub-committee tasked with judging weather or not a species is sapient or not.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
This wouldn't be a quiet attempt to keep Artificial Intelligence from being defined as Sapient, would it? I think the League might have an issue with that.

Good heavens, no! Why would I even want to do that. Even Aeiouia might kill me.

Thus why we support using an individual with the properties of biological life, not merely physical entities. I believe "individual" has precedent for not being group-of-folks based, while AI generally exhibit the characteristics of biological life in their own way (they reproduce, they try to keep a balance within themselves, they like growing -- couple that with sentience, and you're close). A collective hivemind would be complicated, yes, but only in the matter of what defines their sapience as a whole, and I don't exactly know how to answer that.

The problem is it is too easy to exclude AIs as non-biological. Not all AIs reproduce, and not all of them maintain homeostasis (actually, my nation is working to construct a sapient AI that does not reproduce and changes personality based on our nation's demographics... definitely not meeting your definition).

On your physical entity note: That still feels sketchy, since a corporation is composed of multiple physical beings...Would still prefer earlier suggested definition.

I have never seen a corporation defined as the group of employees working for it... those employees come and go, but the corporation stays. Plus, the corporation only exists on paper... would an outside observer, lacking all knowledge of the language and business practices, know that there was a corporation, and not merely a bunch of individuals working together?

On your age of majority note: That's where the trouble comes in. Is age of majority defined by species, or by nation? If it is by nation, then we'll have an issue, since some species don't fully mature (or mature way before) the age where their nation's majority becomes full adults. That, I think, must be etched out clearly, lest we accidentally legalize baby elf rape.

It's left up to the nation to define their age of majority (for individual species if they want to). This is how it has been before this resolution, I don't see why it should be different. Do we really need to turn this into a pedophilia ban too? Is there anything this resolution doesn't need to do, or do we need to specify that background checks are necessary for mentally ill sapient beings seeking to buy firearms? (I'm joking.)

Well, if I assume this ridiculous scenario is even possible, the tinpot dictator could still say that all humans are non-sapients, but still give those humans their proper rights, while leaving all other species right-less (wrong?) -- we're not mandated by anything in WA law to not give rights to non-sapients anyway, and it won't be considered against this resolution, since they are following the resolution -- that they give rights to sapients (in this case, the lord of the land) -- while following all the other resolutions, in giving humans their rights anyway.

I considered this, but figured that A) They still failed to administer a test passable by the average human, thus they are still in non-compliance.
B) The lack of sapients would mean they might have a hard time complying with GA#122 "Read the Resolution Act", which specifically requires that nations "Ensure that this office shall be staffed by at least one sapient, literate employee;"

Hmm...these gnarly bits are starting to convince me that this resolution might not be feasible after all, at least as a one-off.

I believe we can do it. But if not, just leave my resolution in place, it's better than nothing.

[Excidium Planetis]

Namely, a definition of sapience applied to an individual, or to a group as a whole would run into difficulty when "Human rights" are applied to a separate species. It would not be outside the realms of probability to imagine a sentient creature that has a larval stage that a tiny fraction of individual larvae survive, followed by an adult stage where "sapience" is displayed. If some form of protection was offered to said larvae, it could drastically disrupt the population of the species, as every larvae would be afforded "human" rights.

Oddly enough, that is exactly NOT the problem I had with the currently in place resolution, which only offered rights to sapient beings, not non-sapient larvae.

May we suggest that "human" rights are applied to sapient species where appropriate?

That would be great, if not for the fact that it leaves a gaping loophole for the loonies who say "appropriate" means "it is only appropriate for humans or other favored species, and never appropriate for the 'lower' species we want to oppress."

Do you have a loophole free version?

We are also concerned that there is too much of an attempt to realistically define sapience in 3,000 characters. Our philosophers have (admittedly often as an attempt to draw out a research budget well over its allotted time) written entire treatises on sapience, and come to very little in the way of a conclusion. Perhaps you should mandate that nations must "consider any reasonable request to recognise sapience in another lifeform" or indeed, create a sub-committee tasked with judging weather or not a species is sapient or not.

I left it up to nations to determine sapience in the last resolution. Got flak for that. Now I try to define it solidly, as my critics asked, and it still isn't correct? What do you people want me to do?
(OOC: Can't create a committee because that's "forced roleplay" by forcing nations to recognize non-human sapients. It has to be a definition that nations apply to the species they recognize as canon, not some WA group that tells them they must treat those alien robot ponies with respect.)

[Capyton]

Since a Repeal is already up, I might as well begin drafting a replacement.

Please offer your harshest criticism. I apparently didn't get enough the last time.

Also note that this is a complete Work in Progress, and is definitely not the final draft.

Rights of Members of Sapient Species
A resolution to improve world multiverse-wide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis

---

Description: The General Assembly,

Applauding the efforts to secure rights for all sapient beings, regardless of race or species, and the many efforts not to limit such rights to only beings of the homo sapiens species;

Nevertheless Concerned at the many attempts to restrict the rights of sapient beings for purely racial reasons, including but not limited to attempts to restrict the rights of sapient machines and an attempt to make human decisions necessary in the warfare of non-human species;

Believing that to secure once and for all the rights of sapient beings everywhere, a resolution is needed to affirm these rights;

Defines: "Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing both a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement and b) sentience.

"Reason" as the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

[Appropriate judgement definition needed]

"Sentience" as the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

"Existing international laws" as any passed World Assembly Resolutions which are extant and not void at the time an individual may read this resolution, whether those resolutions have been passed before or after this resolution was passed.

And Hereby Declares that any sapient beings found inside member nations are not to be denied any of the rights guaranteed to humans or sapient beings by existing international laws, and that no member nation may discriminate against sapient beings for reasons of race or species alone.

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being.

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human.

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

I really don't feel like being conquered by Skynet, thank you kindly.

[Caracasus]

Namely, a definition of sapience applied to an individual, or to a group as a whole would run into difficulty when "Human rights" are applied to a separate species. It would not be outside the realms of probability to imagine a sentient creature that has a larval stage that a tiny fraction of individual larvae survive, followed by an adult stage where "sapience" is displayed. If some form of protection was offered to said larvae, it could drastically disrupt the population of the species, as every larvae would be afforded "human" rights.

Oddly enough, that is exactly NOT the problem I had with the currently in place resolution, which only offered rights to sapient beings, not non-sapient larvae.

May we suggest that "human" rights are applied to sapient species where appropriate?

That would be great, if not for the fact that it leaves a gaping loophole for the loonies who say "appropriate" means "it is only appropriate for humans or other favored species, and never appropriate for the 'lower' species we want to oppress."

Do you have a loophole free version?

We are also concerned that there is too much of an attempt to realistically define sapience in 3,000 characters. Our philosophers have (admittedly often as an attempt to draw out a research budget well over its allotted time) written entire treatises on sapience, and come to very little in the way of a conclusion. Perhaps you should mandate that nations must "consider any reasonable request to recognise sapience in another lifeform" or indeed, create a sub-committee tasked with judging weather or not a species is sapient or not.

I left it up to nations to determine sapience in the last resolution. Got flak for that. Now I try to define it solidly, as my critics asked, and it still isn't correct? What do you people want me to do?
(OOC: Can't create a committee because that's "forced roleplay" by forcing nations to recognize non-human sapients. It has to be a definition that nations apply to the species they recognize as canon, not some WA group that tells them they must treat those alien robot ponies with respect.)

Well ambassador, we admit that our example of non-sentient larvae may be irrelevant, but we still have to deal with the fact that other sapient beings may be radically different from humans, with drastic differences in how they perceive the world. Given that within human groups, there is already a great deal of difference regarding almost everything, we can only imagine how wider those gaps and differences would be when a new sapient is included. We simply cannot merely extend existing human rights to creatures that may be decidedly non-human. In addition, the non-sapient larvae outlined in our example could be considered under this section of your proposal as children of a sapient creature:

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being.

Now, we believe that "where appropriate" would not fall foul of potential loopholes. After all, nations are required to follow WA legislation by the dreaded gnomes. Those lunatics who would abuse the system to benefit humans (or other sapients) above that of other sapients would not be extending human rights to other sapients where appropriate. We understand your wish not to create another committee however. In all honesty, we cannot see how anyone could come up with a satisfactory definition of sapience within the 3000 word limit. We believe the only way this could work is if nations are allowed to define sapience within certain guidelines, or a committee is formed to consider cases.

[Mundiferrum]

Thus why we support using an individual with the properties of biological life, not merely physical entities. I believe "individual" has precedent for not being group-of-folks based, while AI generally exhibit the characteristics of biological life in their own way (they reproduce, they try to keep a balance within themselves, they like growing -- couple that with sentience, and you're close). A collective hivemind would be complicated, yes, but only in the matter of what defines their sapience as a whole, and I don't exactly know how to answer that.

The problem is it is too easy to exclude AIs as non-biological. Not all AIs reproduce, and not all of them maintain homeostasis (actually, my nation is working to construct a sapient AI that does not reproduce and changes personality based on our nation's demographics... definitely not meeting your definition).

Life should exhibit all or most of these, or at least should be able to exhibit them:
Homeostasis - I would think that an AI's organization of its databanks is, in essence, a form of this
Organization - AIs definitely have this
Metabolism - Their mode of metabolism would naturally be especially different to that of organic life forms, but I suppose the transfer of energy from one electrochemical point to another could count as metabolism? At any rate, most
Growth - When AIs get information, that's essentially their mode of growth
Adaptation - They have this
Response to Stimuli - They have this
Reproduction - Again, most, though I would think that an AI with the capacity to make copies of itself counts
Couple that with the sentience bit, and AIs fit, without the general ambiguities of using "physical entity", methinks.

On your physical entity note: That still feels sketchy, since a corporation is composed of multiple physical beings...Would still prefer earlier suggested definition.

I have never seen a corporation defined as the group of employees working for it... those employees come and go, but the corporation stays. Plus, the corporation only exists on paper... would an outside observer, lacking all knowledge of the language and business practices, know that there was a corporation, and not merely a bunch of individuals working together?

What about cities? Mobs? Whole nations? Those are essentially entities too.

On your age of majority note: That's where the trouble comes in. Is age of majority defined by species, or by nation? If it is by nation, then we'll have an issue, since some species don't fully mature (or mature way before) the age where their nation's majority becomes full adults. That, I think, must be etched out clearly, lest we accidentally legalize baby elf rape.

It's left up to the nation to define their age of majority (for individual species if they want to). This is how it has been before this resolution, I don't see why it should be different. Do we really need to turn this into a pedophilia ban too? Is there anything this resolution doesn't need to do, or do we need to specify that background checks are necessary for mentally ill sapient beings seeking to buy firearms? (I'm joking.)

Yeah, I would suggest putting something in your resolution regarding this (you seem to be far from the word limit anyway) -- that different growth rates should require different ages of majority. Or do you want the rights to reproduce to inadvertently go to children, too? Maybe just "encourages nations to accommodate certain legal details, such as ages of majority et al, to species with different growth rates and whatever"

Well, if I assume this ridiculous scenario is even possible, the tinpot dictator could still say that all humans are non-sapients, but still give those humans their proper rights, while leaving all other species right-less (wrong?) -- we're not mandated by anything in WA law to not give rights to non-sapients anyway, and it won't be considered against this resolution, since they are following the resolution -- that they give rights to sapients (in this case, the lord of the land) -- while following all the other resolutions, in giving humans their rights anyway.

I considered this, but figured that A) They still failed to administer a test passable by the average human, thus they are still in non-compliance.
B) The lack of sapients would mean they might have a hard time complying with GA#122 "Read the Resolution Act", which specifically requires that nations "Ensure that this office shall be staffed by at least one sapient, literate employee;"

On your first point, let me remake my point. "Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human" -- in "applying equally to humans", well, brain structure and DNA examination pretty much applies to every beings equally: a test could be structured so as to measure those things to determine existent sentience or whatever, with the basis for passing being the human brain. Ie, passable by the (by only) average humans, while still applying to every species imaginable. On your second point, "by at least one sapient, literate employee", you have your dictator still considered sapient.

Hmm...these gnarly bits are starting to convince me that this resolution might not be feasible after all, at least as a one-off.

I believe we can do it. But if not, just leave my resolution in place, it's better than nothing.[/quote]
Not gonna happen: its gnarly bits are too gnarly for my taste (especially the corporations bit -- that really, really sucks).

[Excidium Planetis]

I really don't feel like being conquered by Skynet, thank you kindly.

"Who's Skynet?" Ambassador Schultz asks. "Why don't you just nuke them like any reasonable nation about to be conquered?"

Well ambassador, we admit that our example of non-sentient larvae may be irrelevant, but we still have to deal with the fact that other sapient beings may be radically different from humans, with drastic differences in how they perceive the world. Given that within human groups, there is already a great deal of difference regarding almost everything, we can only imagine how wider those gaps and differences would be when a new sapient is included. We simply cannot merely extend existing human rights to creatures that may be decidedly non-human. In addition, the non-sapient larvae outlined in our example could be considered under this section of your proposal as children of a sapient creature:

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being.

Now, we believe that "where appropriate" would not fall foul of potential loopholes. After all, nations are required to follow WA legislation by the dreaded gnomes. Those lunatics who would abuse the system to benefit humans (or other sapients) above that of other sapients would not be extending human rights to other sapients where appropriate. We understand your wish not to create another committee however. In all honesty, we cannot see how anyone could come up with a satisfactory definition of sapience within the 3000 word limit. We believe the only way this could work is if nations are allowed to define sapience within certain guidelines, or a committee is formed to consider cases.

"Given the lengths the Mundiferrum Ambassador is going to to try and show that a single human dictator can make a definition of "passable by the average human" so that they are the only one considered sapient, I'm pretty sure they can turn "where appropriate" into a loophole. Hell, I think I saw Ambassador Trudeau once argue that all religions could be defined as harmful and advocating violence in order to ban religion, despite such resolutions as 'Freedom of Expression', 'Freedom to Read and Learn', 'Military Freedoms Act', and "Permit Male Circumcision'. You underestimate the ways people will twist words." She pauses.

"What about 'unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights'? Seems hard to twist that, still avoids the problem you addressed."

Life should exhibit all or most of these, or at least should be able to exhibit them:
Homeostasis - I would think that an AI's organization of its databanks is, in essence, a form of this
Organization - AIs definitely have this
Metabolism - Their mode of metabolism would naturally be especially different to that of organic life forms, but I suppose the transfer of energy from one electrochemical point to another could count as metabolism? At any rate, most
Growth - When AIs get information, that's essentially their mode of growth
Adaptation - They have this
Response to Stimuli - They have this
Reproduction - Again, most, though I would think that an AI with the capacity to make copies of itself counts
Couple that with the sentience bit, and AIs fit, without the general ambiguities of using "physical entity", methinks.

That seems rather long and all too easy for governments of nations to say AIs don't fit. It is too easy for governments to deny that data organization is homeostasis, or that information retrieval is growth.

What about cities? Mobs? Whole nations? Those are essentially entities too.

Cities are physical entities, but they are not sapient. A collection of building are not able to reason (actually, what about a city that is also an AI? Would you deny that city rights?).

Mobs I guess are sapient. But then again, what's the harm in protecting mobs from slavery, allowing mobs freedom of expression?

Whole nations are not sapient. As with Corporations, the imaginary construct of a nation cannot reason, act with appropriate judgement, cannot perceive subjectively. Only the individuals that make up the nation or Corporation can. So only the individuals get the rights.

Yeah, I would suggest putting something in your resolution regarding this (you seem to be far from the word limit anyway) -- that different growth rates should require different ages of majority. Or do you want the rights to reproduce to inadvertently go to children, too? Maybe just "encourages nations to accommodate certain legal details, such as ages of majority et al, to species with different growth rates and whatever"

How about 'Nations must define legal age of majority for individual species, the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of sexual maturity for that species'?

On your first point, let me remake my point. "Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human" -- in "applying equally to humans", well, brain structure and DNA examination pretty much applies to every beings equally: a test could be structured so as to measure those things to determine existent sentience or whatever, with the basis for passing being the human brain. Ie, passable by the (by only) average humans, while still applying to every species imaginable. On your second point, "by at least one sapient, literate employee", you have your dictator still considered sapient.

But then we now have most or all humans in the nation considered sapient, not just the dictator. This is an entirely different scenario.

Perhaps there should be an addition to the clause 'tests must not be based on the anatomy of a species'?

Not gonna happen: its gnarly bits are too gnarly for my taste (especially the corporations bit -- that really, really sucks).

As I said, Corporations are not sapient unless your nation determines them to be. And if your nation determined corporations to be sapient, why would you want to deny sapient beings their rights?

[Mundiferrum]

Life should exhibit all or most of these, or at least should be able to exhibit them:
Homeostasis - I would think that an AI's organization of its databanks is, in essence, a form of this
Organization - AIs definitely have this
Metabolism - Their mode of metabolism would naturally be especially different to that of organic life forms, but I suppose the transfer of energy from one electrochemical point to another could count as metabolism? At any rate, most
Growth - When AIs get information, that's essentially their mode of growth
Adaptation - They have this
Response to Stimuli - They have this
Reproduction - Again, most, though I would think that an AI with the capacity to make copies of itself counts
Couple that with the sentience bit, and AIs fit, without the general ambiguities of using "physical entity", methinks.

That seems rather long and all too easy for governments of nations to say AIs don't fit. It is too easy for governments to deny that data organization is homeostasis, or that information retrieval is growth.

Rather long? All you need to write is that they fit the definition of biological life (scientific consensus should be sufficient there) without restricting the idea of life to organic means, or expanding it to more unorthodox (digital) means. That shouldn't be too hard.

Or better yet, start a damn committee. You're already "forcing" roleplay into the mess by passing this resolution; why not take it a step further and make it so that the incorruptible gnomes arrange everything.

What about cities? Mobs? Whole nations? Those are essentially entities too.

Cities are physical entities, but they are not sapient. A collection of building are not able to reason (actually, what about a city that is also an AI? Would you deny that city rights?).

Mobs I guess are sapient. But then again, what's the harm in protecting mobs from slavery, allowing mobs freedom of expression?

Whole nations are not sapient. As with Corporations, the imaginary construct of a nation cannot reason, act with appropriate judgement, cannot perceive subjectively. Only the individuals that make up the nation or Corporation can. So only the individuals get the rights.

Cities are sapient by your current definition, since it does have a collective consciousness -- a level of sentience. And I'm pretty sure mobs as a whole shouldn't be able to own property as an individual, or receive healthcare as an individual, or (oh god) abort babies as an individual. You seem to be addressing my individual examples, and not at all trying to get at my general point.

Yeah, I would suggest putting something in your resolution regarding this (you seem to be far from the word limit anyway) -- that different growth rates should require different ages of majority. Or do you want the rights to reproduce to inadvertently go to children, too? Maybe just "encourages nations to accommodate certain legal details, such as ages of majority et al, to species with different growth rates and whatever"

How about 'Nations must define legal age of majority for individual species, the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of sexual maturity for that species'?

Bingo.

On your first point, let me remake my point. "Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human" -- in "applying equally to humans", well, brain structure and DNA examination pretty much applies to every beings equally: a test could be structured so as to measure those things to determine existent sentience or whatever, with the basis for passing being the human brain. Ie, passable by the (by only) average humans, while still applying to every species imaginable. On your second point, "by at least one sapient, literate employee", you have your dictator still considered sapient.

But then we now have most or all humans in the nation considered sapient, not just the dictator. This is an entirely different scenario.

Perhaps there should be an addition to the clause 'tests must not be based on the anatomy of a species'?

You can define a human as sapient and other species as not by other means, such as genetics, cultural recognition, et al. Of course the theoreticaal dictator here is just a bigot, but nevermind that. There doesn't seem to be much of a workaround for this.

[Atomic Utopia]

Physical entity seems a bit odd as I could argue that human thought etc. can be considered non physical using definition one, and because the human body is not capable of reasoning by itself without any of that I could argue that the human body is non sapient and the human brain is non physical, thus humans and other creatures of human comparable intellect can be cut open with rusty knives for *science* as much as I want.

That last argument is a bit of a stretch for creative compliance, but it is most certainly possible.

Again, the possible creative compliance possible with the term "physical entity" that would exclude all life.

[Excidium Planetis]

Physical entity seems a bit odd as I could argue that human thought etc. can be considered non physical using definition one, and because the human body is not capable of reasoning by itself without any of that I could argue that the human body is non sapient and the human brain is non physical, thus humans and other creatures of human comparable intellect can be cut open with rusty knives for *science* as much as I want.

That last argument is a bit of a stretch for creative compliance, but it is most certainly possible.

Again, the possible creative compliance possible with the term "physical entity" that would exclude all life.

Then if they exclude all life, they are in non-compliance with GA#122. So they are willing to not comply anyways, no definition would do anything.

[Damanucus]

Clarifies that it is the responsibility of individual member nations to determine whether a given physical entity is a sapient being, but that such methods of determination must apply equally to humans and any other entities examined, and must also be passable by the average human.

And that, right there, will be the bane of your resolution. By the wording of this paragraph, a legal (by this resolution) method of determination is "Are the species human?" It can be applied equally to humans as other species, and is passable by an average human. Thus, the intention is lost.

But even with that (unlikely) possibility aside, the reality of having multiple, often disconnected criteria between different nations will mean that species declared sapient in one nation may lose that declaration in another, and hence the rights associated with it. If there was a singular body determining the criteria and sapience status (as was suggested in my now-aborted attempt), then the rights can be uniform across all nations in the WA.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Atomic Utopia]

Then if they exclude all life, they are in non-compliance with GA#122. So they are willing to not comply anyways, no definition would do anything.

122 merely asks you to read the damn resolution, nothing more, nothing less. After reading it I determined that you did not define "physical entity" which leaves that loophole open perfectly well. It is within the bounds of legality, and heck, it is the first definition of "physical" that I am using, so I do not understand what you are getting at here.