[PASSED] Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research

[Teretstein]

Replace that with non-sentient.

OOC: No. A normal housecat is sentient. A human is sentient and sapient. The proposal only intends to exclude sapient animals (like humans).

What would you say then to the people who are running countries where housecats are the dominant species?

[Potted Plants United]

What would you say then to the people who are running countries where housecats are the dominant species?

OOC: It was an example using RL animals. In NS, if the dominant species is sapient, then it's sapient. That's why the proposal uses sapient.

[Teretstein]

What would you say then to the people who are running countries where housecats are the dominant species?

OOC: It was an example using RL animals. In NS, if the dominant species is sapient, then it's sapient. That's why the proposal uses sapient.

But what if the dominant species isn't sapient? The official dictionary definition of sapient is "appearing to be wise".

I don't have a problem with this proposal in theory, but using the word sapient opens up a lot of grey areas there.

[Potted Plants United]

But what if the dominant species isn't sapient? The official dictionary definition of sapient is "appearing to be wise".

OOC: Then it's not dominant species in the sense that humans are dominant species of RL Earth (the most numerous vertebrate is a small deepwater fish, and most numerous invertebrate is some kind of nematode worm). And then it doesn't matter at all.

I don't have a problem with this proposal in theory, but using the word sapient opens up a lot of grey areas there.

You're new here. Outside of here "sentient" and "sapient" may be used interchangeably, but "sapient" has a much more specific meaning, and has been used in relevant existing resolutions, so whether you like it or not, it's the correct word to use here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Just cut the science fiction technobabble out and use the standard words 'person', 'people', 'individuals', etc.

[Araraukar]

Just cut the science fiction technobabble out and use the standard words 'person', 'people', 'individuals', etc.

OOC: Just because it's not your particular area of expertize, does not make it science fiction. And "sapient" has already been used in numerous resolutions, so it's not like there wasn't solid precedent for using it.

But using person and people wouldn't work with the use of "non-sapient", as "non-person" evokes completely unrelated associations of erasure of personhood and whatnot ("non-people" is even worse, because "a people" is a whole different thing than "a person"), and would lead into all kinds of trouble that is avoided with "non-sapient". And individual animals are individuals, so that wouldn't work either.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We already have non-science fiction words for all of these things. There is no reason to believe that if we fly a faster than light spacecraft in 2063 and point-eared totally-not-elves land to say hello, they would not themselves be considered people. If you want to manufacture misinterpretations of how existing descriptors work, that's fine. You don't need to try to breathe them over everyone.

[Maowi]

OOC: I was not aware that "sapient" was considered "science fiction technobabble"? As far as I'm aware, sapience (and derived terms) has been very common used in the GA pretty much interchangeably with personhood. I don't think there's much ambiguity there.

OOC: More than half asleep, but why's clause 8 saying they can't kill the animals, referring to clause 9, which says they can kill the animals? So which is it?

It's supposed to have the end result that they can't kill the animals, except in the specific circumstances outlined in clause 9. I mean, I thought the language was fairly clear but I can probably make the meaning more explicit.

Also, clause 7, why? The proposal is supposed to spell out the minimum requirements. The committee's not needed to handhold scientists/professionals who most likely know better than some random committee how to take care of their research animals.

I guess I put it in to completely eliminate any avenue for negligence on member nations' part, but I suppose good-faith compliance is probably sufficient. I'll scrap that clause.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump.

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump again. If there are no major problems I'll look towards submitting in a couple of weeks.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Just a question, ambassador. Clause 2(a) as currently written would seem the prohibit the development of the following possible items (a non-exhaustive list):

• Quicker/More humane ways of conducting slaughterhouse operations
• Better methods of killing/cooking crustaceans*
• Mouse/Rat Traps and poisons
• Insecticides* / insect traps*
• drugs for the humane euthenization of sick, injured, or surplus animals

Is that your intent?

OOC: Items marked with a * are subject to controversy IRL.

[Maowi]

"Well, I don't think 2.a. is the problematic clause for what you describe, but 2.b. in conjunction with the former is. I concur with you, seeking to develop more humane methods of pest control and other necessary killing of animals should not be prohibited. I have changed 2.b. in a manner that should hopefully acount for that."

[Kenmoria]

“The use of the word ‘objective’ in clause 2b disagrees with me. The pleasure derived from seeing one’s home free of flies can’t really be objectively measured, nor can the taste improvements from eating lobster rather than a lobster substitute. Just having ‘material benefit’ should work just as well.”

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

"Well, I don't think 2.a. is the problematic clause for what you describe, but 2.b. in conjunction with the former is. I concur with you, seeking to develop more humane methods of pest control and other necessary killing of animals should not be prohibited. I have changed 2.b. in a manner that should hopefully acount for that."

Our apologies ambassador. The typographic error in our translation has been corrected, and the gnome responsible has been sacked. We will have to think on the new wording, as we admit, we find it difficult to parse, though we do think the Kenmorian delegation may have a point. Perhaps it could read "material benefit to the user or a reduction in suffering for an animal killed for a lawful purpose" or something similar

[Maowi]

“The use of the word ‘objective’ in clause 2b disagrees with me. The pleasure derived from seeing one’s home free of flies can’t really be objectively measured, nor can the taste improvements from eating lobster rather than a lobster substitute. Just having ‘material benefit’ should work just as well.”

"Fair enough, ambassador: I have removed the word 'objective' from the clause. Thanks for pointing it out."

Our apologies ambassador. The typographic error in our translation has been corrected, and the gnome responsible has been sacked. We will have to think on the new wording, as we admit, we find it difficult to parse, though we do think the Kenmorian delegation may have a point. Perhaps it could read "material benefit to the user or a reduction in suffering for an animal killed for a lawful purpose" or something similar

Feargal wipes his glasses guiltily and makes a mental note not to point out typographical errors from the Burkean delegation in the future. "Ah, yes, I have put in some wording along the lines of what you suggest. I hope that is a little clearer."

[Maowi]

OOC: Bump. Unless a big problem comes up, I'll submit in exactly two weeks.

[Maowi]

OOC: Apologies for the triple post, but I will submit this in one week if no major flaws are pointed out in that time, so I'm bumping this for more feedback.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Apologies for the triple post, but I will submit this in one week if no major flaws are pointed out in that time, so I'm bumping this for more feedback.

(OOC: This looks good to go.)

[Maowi]

OOC: Made some very minor changes, and intend to submit this in around 24 hours. Speak now or forever hold your peace

[Araraukar]

OOC: Made some very minor changes, and intend to submit this in around 24 hours. Speak now or forever hold your peace

OOC: *coughs up some phlegm* Does it intentionally only apply to institutions and not all kinds of facilities and organizations?

[Maowi]

OOC: I'm reviving this draft again and hope to submit fairly soon, if there's nothing much more said on it.

OOC: Made some very minor changes, and intend to submit this in around 24 hours. Speak now or forever hold your peace

OOC: *coughs up some phlegm* Does it intentionally only apply to institutions and not all kinds of facilities and organizations?

Well, the definition google gives me of institute is this - "an organisation having a particular purpose, especially one that is involved with science, education, or a specific profession" - which is the idea I had of it too, but if you think it's possible to interpret that more narrowly I guess there's no harm in changing it to make sure it's broad enough.

[Maowi]

OOC: Well, this got swamped very quickly ... any more suggestions? If not I'll submit when the GA queue calms down a bit. Which hopefully will take less than ten years.

[Maowi]

OOC: Hoping to submit this in exactly a week.

[Maowi]

OOC: Updated with a new clause 2.c. on endangered species and hoping to submit shortly now that the proposal queue has cleared up - feedback on the new clause (or anything else!) is appreciated.

[Maowi]

OOC: OK, I've submitted this.