Sorry if my question was weird.
And no, I am not some human’s pet that just became intelligent and took over their Lemmy account. 😺
They will probably be their own nation with their own laws on what is fair and what is not based on their values. I assume a new sentient specie will not have the same views and values as humans.
It’s an interesting idea. If they always were intelligent, then yes, they’d probably have their own nation, or maybe they’d even be integrated with us in a society that accommodates for both of our form factors, but I’m sure there’d be terrible racism concerns because if we’re this bad to people who look relatively similar to each other, then we’d be just terrible to a very different intelligent race.
But, if they suddenly became sentient through some sci Fi artifact or event, that’d be a whole other thing, and the process and debate of giving them rights and what to do about it would be complex and an ethical minefield on what to do or don’t do. Probably planet of the apes. But with cats and dogs.
They’ll be persecuted and discriminated
I mostly agree with the comment, however, mammals are sentient. Our current laws are massively influenced by us not really understanding them and by ideas such as non-humans essentially being “living machines”, created as servants to humanity.
Other mammals are sentient, but not sapient so far as we know, with the possible exception of some species of dolphins and whales, but this has yet to be proven. (It is pretty much proven that apes, monkeys, etc are not sapient)
What’s they key distinguisher of sapience? There are different measures, but “theory of mind” is the one that seems most relevant. The ability to think about what someone else is thinking. This seems to correlate also with the ability to ask questions and tell stories, and we currently know of no other being besides humans that can do either— again, research into dolphins and whales continues, and there might be potential there, but we’re pretty darn certain nothing on land has it.
They are already sentient but have not the intelligence of a average developed human. Pigs for example are sentient but their intelligence is like that of a 3 year old human.
I knew how to read some words at 3 years old
killing pigs feels wrong
Of course it feels wrong, they’re living creatures. We should develop lab meat as a priority, but for now they must use hormones from cow fetuses to make it grow, which kind of defeats the purpose…
Lab meat would only benefit first world countries. The others would have to pay fortunes for licensing the techniques, and that’s if the developing countries ever get to the point where they can use the process.
Of course, that’s why we must opensource the research. But first we need to get rid of the need for fetal bovine serum, which is exactly what you think it is.
Of course, that’s why we must opensource the research.
You’re funny if you think that will ever happen. No 1st world country will miss the chance to foster the economic dependency of developing nations.
All animals are sentient. Smarts/intelligence is what varies. We got the most of the smarts that we know of.
So those who remain in their country of origin, during the first waves of this development, would surely have to be given he right to vote etc?
No. There are already plenty examples of this. Thinking this will happen in the near future (100 years) is a fairytale.
As long as you don’t have vocal cords capable of creating effective speech and you don’t have appendages with which is possible to create and use tools you’re fucked.
Examples? Plenty, let’s go:
Pig: As intelligent as a 6 year old. What we do to them makes Auswitz looks like summer camp.
Dolphins: pushed into a bay and murdered by the hundreds. Thousands (millions?) die each year in the nets of our floating fishing factories. Their intellect is at least that of a 6 year old and most probably way more.
Whales: hunted to virtual extinction. Way more intelligent then a 6 year old.
Elephants: show clear sociological traits. Remembers stuff over a long time. Grieve over death. Hunted for their big ass teeth.
Apes: our close relatives. Hunted for meat. Most species of them easily operate at 10-12 year old level. Can use tools but can not create them. At the current path they’re on in the wild (extinction). They will never reach the stone age.
We rule. Harshly.
Don’t forget our corvid friends. Crows and ravens are very good at problem solving and abstract thinking.
Octopuses too. Excellent problem solving, retaining long-term and short-term memory, recognizing how mirror works and so forth.
But they’re delicious.
Absolutely depraved.
Fuck Humans
that may exacerbate things.
Whoa, elephants have ass teeth?
We have our place on the planet purely by right of conquest.
It’s fundamentally immoral what we do to animals but people just ignore it, accept it as a necessary evil, or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.
or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Meat-eating
Absolutely.
Humans would never grant rights to a species that could outbreed us in a decade.
I believe chimps? have learned to make tools.
These species kill us back if they have the chance. Maybe the golden rule should apply. Treat other species how you wish to be treated. At the same time, we can barely exist with each other. Let alone other species.
They should, but they wouldn’t.
We can’t even get fair treatment for humans.
Not to mention, people can’t even see past cultural veils… pigs are smarter than dogs, and people who would never eat a dog have no second thoughts eating pigs and mocking vegetarians/vegans.
Should they? Yes.
Would they? Ahhhahahaha
Rights have nothing to do with intelligence, otherwise people like Trump or Andrew Tate would have ~0 rights.
Of course it does. It’s why children and the mentally handicapped can’t sign into contracts and can’t consent to sex among other things.
In addition, I’m willing to bet both of those people are probably 1 or 2 standard deviations above average intelligence. Just because they say stupid things does not make them stupid.
I personally think they’re both modern geniuses in the sense that they learned how to grift in the new social media era better than so many others. Trump with his at the time unique use of social media and simple repetitive speeches while I was impressed at Tate’s ban evasion strategy.
Tate created a sort of pyramid scheme after he got banned from everywhere online. His people were encouraged to spread his content in order to get more sign-ups for his pyramid scheme. They would get a % of the revenue from sign-ups. So for a good few months his face was everywhere online and he was the top google search topic in the US - even though he was banned from most social medias. Thousands of his fans would post short clips of his content to YouTube, reddit, Instagram, etc.
Tate also has an impressive power of manipulation with certain types of women. He has managed to convince dozens of very attractive women to come from the across the world to essentially prostitute themselves online for him.
Of course, both broke the law with total disregard. Trump in too many ways to count and Tate by using fraud and coercion to maintain his control over the women (ie sex trafficking)… but honestly I’m impressed at both of them.
I think we need good guys who have balls and are creative with social media. Why is it only the nutters who are successful like this?
Because you have to be a manipulative cunt to do shit like this.
Hey, a little show business and flair for the dramatic for a good cause can be considered manipulation but I think it would be good. Imagine a socialist Trump who isn’t afraid to blast people and is able to get all the attention Trump does.
I’d rather have a decent person who doesn’t r*pe minors
I agree. A tendency for raping minors is definitely not a desirable trait in a leader.
Really I want a controversial leftist populist who is good with modern media. Maybe it’d be dangerous but I’d imagine no more dangerous than Trump and his death cult.
I’m so tired of the media circus shit. I wish we could elect someone utterly boring and pragmatic :(
In a perfect world I think that’d be best. Some sort of experienced and educated technocrat who gradually reforms the system into a more equitable one.
Realistically though, the issue is two-fold. In this modern environment with lowering attention spans and increasing polarization, you need this type of circus media strategy to be a viable candidate.
Even Biden’s campaign for example is posting “dark brandon” ads on conservative websites. I don’t think he’s advertising to conservatives as much as knowing it will go viral and everyone else will see it as well. And from what I can gather, it worked pretty well. I’ve seen multiple posts about that campaign online on different platforms.
Secondly, we are in unprecedented times. Gradual reform won’t cut it. There are threats of war, economic instability, political tensions (including violence), etc. I think the only real way to be effective in this environment is by being radical. Anything else would just maintain the status quo - essentially biding time until the next radical right winger wins again. It’s too dangerous.
I am not the least impressed by criminals who violate the law (and not petty laws like I pirated a CD) in order to succeed. Try being Mozart. That would impress me and that I would call genius.
There are many people in prison today and there is only one Trump.
The guy took down the entire GOP establishment in 2016 and essentially owns the party today. It’s hard to understate the significance of this. It was essentially a coup, and he managed to do it with media.
If the left ever wants real change in this country we need to be able to do the same thing. Bernie for example failed.
His team with help from foreign powers did that. He did nothing but prattle nonsense. There are many people in prison and only one of each and only one as rich as Trump. A richness he didn’t create.
Ok so answer this - you believe Trump played absolutely zero role in the takeover of the Republican party? You think he was simply a puppet for foreign powers and his apparent aptitude with the media is entirely due to this connection to foreign powers?
Obviously no one leader acts alone - even Hitler himself in his rise to power had to stand on the shoulders of his advisors and supporters. But what role did he play in his domination of German politics?
I think personally these types of people learn to surf intuitively. They ride the wave of public opinion and know what to say from some sort of intuitive sense. Trump had time to develop this sense - he has been in the public eye more or less his whole life and spent many years on TV.
Hitler was a giant if compared to that babbling orange splash. I know this better than anyone, there’s nobody who understands that better than I do, we’ll build a beautiful wall. C’mon, he’s worse than Berlusconi and he was a clown. I can’t fathom why people vote for these idiots but then we have Miss Meloni who believes torture should be legalized cos restraints force the police to operate suboptimally. This world was finished the moment we started being cretins and it’s all downhill from here.
Yes, obviously.
Yes, intelligence is intelligence. There’s nothing about the rest of the body that the brain is encased in that makes one more or less deserving of rights.
If a human has the intelligence of a dog, they should have the same rights as a dog?
While not technically, practically they do yes. If someone has developmental issues they generally aren’t afforded the same rights as the average adult human.
So a teenager that isn’t old enough to vote but is mentally intelligent enough to operate by themselves in society (so like 15 or so) should have more rights than they do?
If we’re going purely based on intelligence then your argument doesn’t hold water, as intelligent people who are too young to be full citizens capable of voting, military service, owning property, etc. Are still dependent on their guardians.
How would this be any different? Intelligent handicapped people exist and don’t get every opportunity that others do.
Looks like something someone without opposable thumbs would type.
I’ll have you know I meow at the ship computer.
If they became more intelligent than us, would they pick up our poo?
They would probably train us to poo in a place where our poo didn’t need to be picked and could just be disposed off easilly, maybe by using running water and a system of pipes serving a large geographical area with pet-human cages, which would take the water carrying such substances to a central place were it could be treated or disposed.
Eventually they might be concerned with our mental well being and find simple tasks we can do to keep ourselves busy. To make it more efficient they could construct indoor spaces where we can be with other pet-humans doing tasks until they’re ready for us to return to our cages.
Cats definitely wouldn’t
Humans go out of their way to mistreat and abuse other humans. If cats and dogs became as intelligent as humans, some dickhead leader of a leading religious cults would label them satan/ abomination/ equivalent b.s. and call to have them exterminated. and/or capitalists would lobby to deny them rights and pass laws to profit off them & their labour.
If they’re as smart, communicatable and capable of social responsibilities, then yes. There are some species that may be “differently” smart as humans, but lack a common lanuage and can’t take on shared social responsibilities, so giving them rights is difficult to say the least.
Yes, absolutely they should have rights.
In some countries (like France, iirc), chimps are recognized as having civil rights. They don’t have identical rights to humans of course. They don’t have the same rights as a human, but they are recognized as having rights as individuals.
Although the US hasn’t recognized that, yet, it has effectively banned chimpanzee research. You basically cannot get funded for chimpanzee research unless you a) demonstrate they are necessary for the research and b) you pass a review board similar to a human subjects review board who are charged with maintaining ethical research standards. I don’t do primate research, so I’m not sure of all of the details, but with human subjects boards you have to show that not only does your research. avoid harming humans, the subjects themselves must benefit from your work, if it is health related. When the new rules were passed, most research chimps were retired to preserves
So if there was a l other animal with fully human intelligence, there’s legal precedent to recognize that they have inherent dignity and rights.
Parts of the US struggle to offer an adequate level of rights to its human residents.
And they haven’t signed the International Declaration of Human Rights. Apparently declaring work and housing as human rights “goes too far”.
No country opposed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every country that was a UN member at the time either voted in favor of it, or abstained because they believed it didn’t go far enough to include denying human rights to nazis and fascists.
Although, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself isn’t legally binding. It’s just a joint statement by UN members declaring what is considered human rights. It’s not like a violation of International Laws if they just ignore what they said. (Even if it were an international law, who’s gonna enforce it?)
The Third General Assembly adopted the Declaration just before midnight on December 10, 1948 with a vote of 48 to zero and eight abstentions. The abstentions came from the USSR, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UKSSR), the BSSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
The Six Communist Abstentions
The Communist abstentions coalesced around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough. They had repeatedly made the point that to protect human rights adequately, the Declaration needed explicitly to condemn fascism and Nazism. Since it did not do that, they would abstain from the vote. The deep animosity that exists between Marxist egalitarianism and Nazi racism led the USSR delegation to propose amendments to what became Articles 19 and 20 stating that fascists and Nazis did not have human rights to freedom of expression and association. When those amendments were rejected, the Communists, rather than abstaining, which was their custom, voted against these articles.
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/udhr_general/drafting_history_10.html
If they were smart they’d keep their mouths shut
There was a post the other day about whether anyone else has noticed a significant decline in the reading comprehension of the general population, even on sites that skew towards the nerdy like Lemmy, and here we are, with a significant number of top comments that don’t know what “should” means.
I think they know what it means, but they just wanna complain about quasi-related stuff.
If that was the case you would assume they would lead with “Should, but won’t because cynicism.” And several do, because they understand the assignment!
I mean, cats are pretty much little space wizards and they know damn well they’ll have to start finding odd cat jobs and paying rent if we catch on to them being more intelligent than us. They got it figured out.
And no, I am not some human’s pet that just became intelligent and took over their Lemmy account. 😺
If one of my cats took over my Lemmy account, you’d know it for sure. One of them would be always silent, lurking; the other would be spamming stupid shit about yoghurt, towels and boxes, in German.
If cats and dogs became as intelligent as humans, should they have the same rights as humans under law?
Under the moral premise that intelligent beings should get similar rights, yes. Thankfully people don’t usually follow this premise - otherwise mentally disabled people would suffer even more.
Instead I think that most people follow some sort of “naive Realpolitik” - we’re humans and we defend human interests, that’s it. In this case cats/dogs would likely get rights above most other animals (as allied species), but still lower than our own.
I’m not sure on what I would defend in this case.
