HeroCooky
Unverified Monstergirl
Artificial in the sense that they chuck goop into an oven and pop out a fully formed catboy, not as in AI based on code.
No. Suffer.
That Time I Became A Dictator Of A Small Asian Communist Nation
- Thread starter HeroCooky
- Start date
- Original
My thoughts on the creation of new sentient species is basically
1: Automatically afforded the same rights as homo sapiens.
2: Cannot be created for the purpose of filling a Niche issue that can become irrelevent like 'good at mining coal', 'being someones fetish' or 'I want my country to absolutely dominate in the olympics.'
3: Cannot be sterile, as that basically means creating a disposible species that can't continue.
4:Cannot be created in insufficent numbers to constitute a viable breeding population, as that is also a loophole to create a disposible species.
5:Must be afforded the means and time to create their own viable culture. Keeping them seperate so they cannot interact with each other is forbidden.
6:Whoever creates the species is RESPONSIBLE for the species until it can become self sustaining and until it becomes self sustaining all the necessities the race requires must be given for free and without expectation of repayment.
1: Automatically afforded the same rights as homo sapiens.
2: Cannot be created for the purpose of filling a Niche issue that can become irrelevent like 'good at mining coal', 'being someones fetish' or 'I want my country to absolutely dominate in the olympics.'
3: Cannot be sterile, as that basically means creating a disposible species that can't continue.
4:Cannot be created in insufficent numbers to constitute a viable breeding population, as that is also a loophole to create a disposible species.
5:Must be afforded the means and time to create their own viable culture. Keeping them seperate so they cannot interact with each other is forbidden.
6:Whoever creates the species is RESPONSIBLE for the species until it can become self sustaining and until it becomes self sustaining all the necessities the race requires must be given for free and without expectation of repayment.
- Location
- [REDACTED]
Hmm. We should probably ask "Alright. Is everyone SURE they have no new sapient species hidden away somewhere. like cat girls Has everyone checked their secret bases and bunkers? Now is the time to disclose."
Whether or not homo lupus should be given rights is a fairly obvious choice of yes
New creations are a bit more of a grey area since they could easily be exploited. However, I am still against a complete ban, my reasoning being that such a ban would prevent genetic research that may have applications in health.
Modern genetic manipulation can already extend natural lifespan by about 30% in rat tests yet we can't hybridize species into something like homo lupus. Applying the research from the creation of lupus could be used to do something similar to what we have done with computers except in healthcare.
New creations are a bit more of a grey area since they could easily be exploited. However, I am still against a complete ban, my reasoning being that such a ban would prevent genetic research that may have applications in health.
Modern genetic manipulation can already extend natural lifespan by about 30% in rat tests yet we can't hybridize species into something like homo lupus. Applying the research from the creation of lupus could be used to do something similar to what we have done with computers except in healthcare.
Honetly, the core issue is that while the tech in itself isn't evil...
People with delusions of importance may try and gene create a perfect army.
The greedy and the callous on both sides will be exploring the possabilty of making tailor-made loyal workforces that wouldn't care about expensive protections and such. (Why work if you can get others to do it? For some 'communists', they might entertain the idea of elevating the proteleriat by at least completely remove the needs for humans to work in the fields, or places that would be VERY expensive to provide safety like mines.)
And then, there is sadly enough the slave market, where there might rise some demand for 'exotic wares'.
But honestly, banned or not, it would likely only stymie part of the problem.
People with delusions of importance may try and gene create a perfect army.
The greedy and the callous on both sides will be exploring the possabilty of making tailor-made loyal workforces that wouldn't care about expensive protections and such. (Why work if you can get others to do it? For some 'communists', they might entertain the idea of elevating the proteleriat by at least completely remove the needs for humans to work in the fields, or places that would be VERY expensive to provide safety like mines.)
And then, there is sadly enough the slave market, where there might rise some demand for 'exotic wares'.
But honestly, banned or not, it would likely only stymie part of the problem.
- Location
- Texas
We shouldn't ban sapient gene creation, we should make an aquatic race to spread communism to the seas!
Now that it's known to be possible, some people will do it regardless of if it's banned or not. By implimenting rules, some of them might be convinced to play by them, rather than plumbing the depths of depravity.
"If you do it, we'll kill you." Has a completely different impact from "You can do it, but it has to be this way, or we'll kill you."
"If you do it, we'll kill you." Has a completely different impact from "You can do it, but it has to be this way, or we'll kill you."
HeroCooky
Unverified Monstergirl
Good thing, then, that you cannot vote for anything but yes.
And a reminder: the ban is for creating new Human Species, not research into health advancements or genetic diseases.
Yeah, however the way it is worded
Makes it really easy to argue doing genetic research on any species of mankind, that you are trying to make a new species. Since you are researching ways to edit their gene's, while planing to manipulate existing peps.
However If you say it wont stop those then I'll take the QM word for it, and assume the actual legal wording in universe is alot more specific.
Last edited:
I say yes on creating a new human species but it has to be as ethical as possible any unethical uses and it's off the board
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Hm, this is all very complicated.
Overall, I would like it to be allowed but I'm not sure what restrictions should be put on such a thing, or if it is possible to write a set of restrictions which will adequately protect new such species in the real world.
Perhaps all such projects must be forced to have equal representation from several major blocs and take place on (as close as possible to) neutral ground?
Some sort of "council for the peoples of the earth" which presides over such projects and has members from every nation in a way which prevents powerful nations and blocs from forming a majority* (thus forcing goals which benefit all peoples of the earth hopefully close-to-equally)?
Of course, it must be considered what will happen if we fall, as do our allies. Would such a council and all of their learnings be scooped up by those who would use it to make some sort of new subservient slave race, and should we allow what could happen if we are eliminated to stop us from taking on projects which will further the peoples of the earth while we still exist?
*of course, I make this sound very easy when it is, in fact, not
Overall, I would like it to be allowed but I'm not sure what restrictions should be put on such a thing, or if it is possible to write a set of restrictions which will adequately protect new such species in the real world.
Perhaps all such projects must be forced to have equal representation from several major blocs and take place on (as close as possible to) neutral ground?
Some sort of "council for the peoples of the earth" which presides over such projects and has members from every nation in a way which prevents powerful nations and blocs from forming a majority* (thus forcing goals which benefit all peoples of the earth hopefully close-to-equally)?
Of course, it must be considered what will happen if we fall, as do our allies. Would such a council and all of their learnings be scooped up by those who would use it to make some sort of new subservient slave race, and should we allow what could happen if we are eliminated to stop us from taking on projects which will further the peoples of the earth while we still exist?
*of course, I make this sound very easy when it is, in fact, not
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Why would our wanting a ban influence their actions?
The kind of people who'd do that now do not care what we think and presumably expect to be outside of our reach. They live in capitalist, if not outright reactionary, countries.
The kind of people who'd be most enthusiastic about enforcing such a ban in those countries would likely also themselves be reactionaries who would tend to enforce it worst against those who have compassionate aims.
In fairness, that might happen by accident if you don't get the genetic engineering right.
Not Just those in Capitalist blocks.
While less likely due to the foundation of communism, don't underestimate the powers of greed and bigotry.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
But even there, the kind of avowed communists who would create entire races of near-human being purely to exploit them out of greed and bigotry would likely either be beyond our power to hold accountable (e.g. the Soviet Union), or expecting to keep the project a secret until such time as our opinions became irrelevant.
A rule like a ban here is going to have much more effect on those who are already predisposed to respect it. Which, in this case, makes it most likely to ban research into genetically altered near-humans among those who would treat them with good and humane impulses in mind, and least likely to block research into genetically enhanced supersoldiers, sex slaves, or laborers or whatever in the countries that would have been doing that.
Just trying to ban it is going to have the same impact baning drugs, aka giving it to the deepest darkest parts of humanity to abuse it because they never cared about laws in the first place.
but unlike drugs they will be making sentient beings that a ban will unjustly treat no matter if they get out because they will not be able to have a life they want to live.
like if they want to have a family they cannot because they can't have kids because at best they will be banned to have kids the natural way or at worst not be able to adopt normal human kids because no one will what to give them foster kids because they don't want to handle the legal trouble or they are discriminating against them because they are "mutant"
or something like all that basically trying to outright just ban doing it instead of concrete rules that will protect the species being made will cause all kinds of pain and misery.
but unlike drugs they will be making sentient beings that a ban will unjustly treat no matter if they get out because they will not be able to have a life they want to live.
like if they want to have a family they cannot because they can't have kids because at best they will be banned to have kids the natural way or at worst not be able to adopt normal human kids because no one will what to give them foster kids because they don't want to handle the legal trouble or they are discriminating against them because they are "mutant"
or something like all that basically trying to outright just ban doing it instead of concrete rules that will protect the species being made will cause all kinds of pain and misery.
Last edited:
- Location
- [REDACTED]
It's definitely a fine needle to thread, but we shouldn't just give an official carte blanche for this stuff. An outright ban won't stop it, its true. And the enforcability of any laws we do manage to get passed is going to be...spotty, at best. But having some rules written down about what people are at least supposed to do is...well, it's something, at least. Gives us something to point to if us and our allies ever decide they need to...intervene. When we decide we need to intervene.
So, yeah, an outright ban will probably do more harm than good. The genie is already out of the bottle; we cannot stop people from doing this again. But we can push for changes to the language of already existing international law to include all sapient persons (a little future proofing never went wrong) and some consequences for using any sapient as slave-labor, depriving sapients of any rights, and some BIG consequences for the creation of sapient persons for that those purposes. Like, potentially nuclear consequences if we can find some Nuclear Powers to back us up. Worth noting is that we have just created our CyberSyn block--and that is a nice swath of territory we could push to have the full rights of personhood guaranteed for all sapients, both presently existing and those that will exist in the future. And, as I mentioned before, I think it is important that we ask the Lupus what they want out of all this and adjust our plans accordingly. I doubt they'll disagree with the broad strokes of all this but they will certainly have opinions about how they are helped now.
So, yeah, an outright ban will probably do more harm than good. The genie is already out of the bottle; we cannot stop people from doing this again. But we can push for changes to the language of already existing international law to include all sapient persons (a little future proofing never went wrong) and some consequences for using any sapient as slave-labor, depriving sapients of any rights, and some BIG consequences for the creation of sapient persons for that those purposes. Like, potentially nuclear consequences if we can find some Nuclear Powers to back us up. Worth noting is that we have just created our CyberSyn block--and that is a nice swath of territory we could push to have the full rights of personhood guaranteed for all sapients, both presently existing and those that will exist in the future. And, as I mentioned before, I think it is important that we ask the Lupus what they want out of all this and adjust our plans accordingly. I doubt they'll disagree with the broad strokes of all this but they will certainly have opinions about how they are helped now.
HeroCooky
Unverified Monstergirl
The legal wording is far more specific. The ban is to allow other nations to gain a Casus Belli should someone decide to make bunny people instead of wholesale banning research with medical or cosmetic applications.
You take cancer out of that man? Nobody bats an eye.
You put bunny ears on him? Real shit.
What if the bunny ears are cosmetic surgery the man requested? Or for that matter, willing engagement in gene therapy to improve your physical qualities. Effectively, where is the line? Is it just not making a new (biological) species, a new (biological) species of humans, or not engaging in any research that deviates from a human baseline no matter consent, expected outcome, or other applicable variables? The specifics of this really determine where someone would stand on the issue.
Personally I'm against desiging a new sentient, sapient, and sophont species of humans for amy specific purpose, but designing AI is a trickier problem (I like the theory but in our modern world want enough safeguards they effectively can't have the same rights as a human). Genetic modification on willing people is even a step further, with a separarte argument for unborn babies and the right of parents to modify them, but my position tends to be that as long as it doesn't needlessly endanger their health, it's fine, and I even favor the want for improved genetics assuming you can safely edit the information.
Extra lifespan, health, physical and mental ability. All are possibel from genetic engineering, so knowing the exact limits this stance makes is important. Obviously the blatantly evil ideas need banned, but where is the line and how does explicit willingness as confirmed by several parties in the process impact that.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
I just feel really weird about the idea that we should treat "your country harbors a project to make bunny-men" as sufficient cause for a war that, if actually carried out, would assuredly result in the deaths of thousands and the suffering of millions.
EDIT:
Like, to be clear, this isn't me saying "is slavery so bad." No. Just no. Gah.
This is me saying "I think maybe we should approach this question with a bit more nuance than "if bunny-men then WAR." "
This is especially relevant because the countries most likely to have bioscience establishments capable of doing this kind of thing are likely to overlap heavily with the list of countries that have or could plausibly obtain nuclear weapons.
EDIT:
Like, to be clear, this isn't me saying "is slavery so bad." No. Just no. Gah.
This is me saying "I think maybe we should approach this question with a bit more nuance than "if bunny-men then WAR." "
This is especially relevant because the countries most likely to have bioscience establishments capable of doing this kind of thing are likely to overlap heavily with the list of countries that have or could plausibly obtain nuclear weapons.
Last edited:
HeroCooky
Unverified Monstergirl
I should have bern less joking in my answer, so I'll try my best to explain it in a way that (hopefully) makes sense for you/the thread.
So let's imagine you have a golden retriever. If you make a genetic alteration that turns their coat into a rainbow, that would be legal. Cosmetic alterations of humans are also legal. If you give them another 40 years to be the goodest of doggies, that would also be legal. So would it be for humans. You add a stinger with venom, an exoskeleton, and beef 'em up to grow up to a adult human male's torso? Illegal, as that would be a new species of dog. So it would be illegal for humans to be modified on the same scale.
Edit: Basically, changing the coat is okay, making a pug is not.
The Casus Belli part is also not a direct "Go To War" card, but a political and diplomatic allowance to heavily sanction and lean on the government that allows the creation of lizard people without repercussions by the wider community of humanity.
However, at the end of the day, that part of the vote is a Write-in section, so you can make those concerns heard by writing them out, and voting for them.
Last edited:
- Location
- A haze of forgetfulness
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Who do we have to send? I only know of Jungmin and Mai.
Hey is the USSR at this meeting?
Just tossing ideas into the air at the moment for the discussion
[] [Meet-Up] The Representative Of The United Soviet Socialist Republics to discuss matters of COMECON and CYPAC regarding security in Eastern Asia. (Hey lets form a plan for when China implodes. Speaking of are you doing alright? Is there anything Guangchou can do to help?)
[] [Questions - Congress] Does Lupus Psychology differ from Sapien Psychology? If so does it prevent integration into wider society?
[] [Questions - Wolfsmenschen] So how do you lot feel about dogs being pets to Sapiens? Is it weird or honoring that the first species we... uplifted(?) is one we consider our best friend as the saying goes?
I have this idea for an omake for the last point of the Guangchou representative bravely going against the grain and saying something to the effect of "If you ban it or make it a social taboo, then only those that wish to break taboo will research it, which, uh, please rethink that." and offering suggestions for international inspections, registry of all research projects using the tools and techniques, international standards for how to gene edit, who you can experiment on, and which genes are off limits. Yada yada bureaucracy stuff. Maybe have provisions of what happens to those who don't follow international standards and oversight of up to and including invasion/regime change. Develop it into a preliminary treaty to present to the UN called something like "The International Treaty Of Genetic Modification, Research, and Specie Engineering". But idk I'll throw that idea into the ring and see what happens.
Hey is the USSR at this meeting?
Just tossing ideas into the air at the moment for the discussion
[] [Meet-Up] The Representative Of The United Soviet Socialist Republics to discuss matters of COMECON and CYPAC regarding security in Eastern Asia. (Hey lets form a plan for when China implodes. Speaking of are you doing alright? Is there anything Guangchou can do to help?)
[] [Questions - Congress] Does Lupus Psychology differ from Sapien Psychology? If so does it prevent integration into wider society?
[] [Questions - Wolfsmenschen] So how do you lot feel about dogs being pets to Sapiens? Is it weird or honoring that the first species we... uplifted(?) is one we consider our best friend as the saying goes?
I have this idea for an omake for the last point of the Guangchou representative bravely going against the grain and saying something to the effect of "If you ban it or make it a social taboo, then only those that wish to break taboo will research it, which, uh, please rethink that." and offering suggestions for international inspections, registry of all research projects using the tools and techniques, international standards for how to gene edit, who you can experiment on, and which genes are off limits. Yada yada bureaucracy stuff. Maybe have provisions of what happens to those who don't follow international standards and oversight of up to and including invasion/regime change. Develop it into a preliminary treaty to present to the UN called something like "The International Treaty Of Genetic Modification, Research, and Specie Engineering". But idk I'll throw that idea into the ring and see what happens.
HeroCooky
Unverified Monstergirl
You can send everyone you wish to, from Jungmin and Mai, to your UN Ambassador, to generals and an OC Diplomat if you wish.
And every nation on Earth will be attending the Congress, with almost all heads of state being in attendance (or those you wish to talk to being there at the very leas) with Reagan being rumored to not attend at all, even as his position as president of the US.
It should be made clear that any intelligent life created should automatically be granted full rights, protection and citizenship with intellgance evaluatuation conducted by no less then two outside parties if the creating party claims that created being isn't intellgancet enough to trigger the treaty.
- Location
- A haze of forgetfulness
- Pronouns
- She/Her
To be clear I meant the treaty would cover ALL genetic research using these tools and techniques not some. So if a country tries to do genetics research they need to open it up to international inspections or face penalties ranging from economic sanctions to regime change. You don't get to say the species you're creating isn't smart enough, that's a (multi-)species wide concern.
Thors_Alumni
Proud member of Thors Class VII from Liberl
- Location
- Liberl Zemuria.
does that include artificial intelligence? because at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if we accidently created an AI.