One, then Two, then More
The deed is done. A supposed animal now has consciousness deep within the confines of a lab is now somewhat or fully able to reason, think, and communicate. While actually forming the words with a distended mouth may be a harder event to think about, the final ruling is official. Of course, now the wide effects have to be considered. Can these animals be considered pets anymore? Can they be sold? Would they be able to lead lives of their own, apart from humans. This makes me think that this is where I really want to branch out with the theoretical here. Now into social order, now into law, now into integration. I.e. the stuff I really don't know much about but would like to think about. Not necessarily all in this blog; I'll try to lightly touch on each, but the bigger projects would definitely come later.
Courts
There's still, turmoil, uncertainty, and excitement everywhere. And bear in mind, a lot of documents will have to be changed as an effect. Should Congress receive word, there may be a push to make a new amendment to the American Constitution. (Maybe just one might not be enough) And it is a near given that the sentient animals would give their weigh-in for the matter. Although, given the weight of this situation, this could very well be the quickest amendment added, or the slowest. (The wise man bets on the latter.) And theoretically this is something that could deadlock the entire legislative system. It's even hard to tell whether the Republican or Democratic side will favour or oppose. Democrats may see the opportunity to grant rights to new creatures in the name of conservationism. The Right may oppose it for fear of GMO's in general. Either side could be right in their end game point to accept or deny sentient animals the human rights.
Either way, other seemingly unrelated topics and controversies arise. It would be mostly obvious that an animal who can reason should be protected. However, should that right extend to animals that don't think. Should cattle who never have the destiny to be treated to be able to reason be protected from becoming killed for food, humanely or not. The answer best depends on the method used to create a sentient animal. If the animal was medicated after birth, then the answer is most likely favouring liberating the cattle. If it was prenatal treatment, then the answer would be very wide open. Considering the animal would have near to no capacity to become sentient, which implies equality, the pathway to become food would stay on the table (pun intended).
To a lesser extent, how would pets' rights play out should the typical large canine or feline domestic receive consciousness. In terms of rights, the status would be elevated from simple pet to possible family household member and possibly guardian. This plays apart from but is somewhat influenced by the insistence that 'pets are family.' And no doubt, there would be families flocking to adopt a pet of their own. And looking at the slightly more advanced status that sentient 'pets' have, or a better term would be 'lower household members.' (Something I expect the law to coin for the new individual.), adoption procedures would, if not should, get more stringent to nearly on par with that of a child. I remember coming across a comic called HousePets where the animals typically classified as pets are actually sentient. However, there are many aspects about the comic I can't get over, as it's just too fantasy for me. Nevertheless, the animals don't quite share the same status as children, but are allowed to wander, engage in store purchases, and create their own social castes. Ironically this plays into the social issues I can eventually touch into.
A Safe and Secure Society
How would a society have to adapt. Noting that the situation will hardly be one and done. Once a single laboratory chooses to execute the project, thousands more will endeavor to repeat the result, one, to validate the results in the published finding, and two, to insert their own names into the records of history. And chances are, the decision of animals won't be the same across the board. maybe two of the same species will arise, maybe multiple. And this would be the wave that follows, bringing with it a multitude of new animals with sentience. And should two of the same species seek to reproduce, well, given that they are fully autonomous creatures, who can stop them. So two or four can easily become eight, twenty, and more. So naturally there would be a movement to grant independence on top of rights. So then should they have a quarters in a normal city? Or is it a better service to quasi-rebuild a city to solely fit the needs of nonhumans? A large question as that would have to wait for another time.
But what I can touch on is the immediate effects of society in response to sentient animals. Stores and other businesses would cater mostly to the human side of a situation. For example, in the beginning, sales and promotions would be given to families closely associated with sentient animals. It would only rise at a later time that businesses would begin catering to the nonhuman sentients, especially given that there would be no serious or national ID service in place for animals.
Next Blog Post
As of now, I would cut this blog somewhat short to prevent myself from delving into some things I want to discuss later and just stay on topic now. Hehe, maybe I lost my focus here, who knows?
Anyways, Happy Thinking!
Courts
There's still, turmoil, uncertainty, and excitement everywhere. And bear in mind, a lot of documents will have to be changed as an effect. Should Congress receive word, there may be a push to make a new amendment to the American Constitution. (Maybe just one might not be enough) And it is a near given that the sentient animals would give their weigh-in for the matter. Although, given the weight of this situation, this could very well be the quickest amendment added, or the slowest. (The wise man bets on the latter.) And theoretically this is something that could deadlock the entire legislative system. It's even hard to tell whether the Republican or Democratic side will favour or oppose. Democrats may see the opportunity to grant rights to new creatures in the name of conservationism. The Right may oppose it for fear of GMO's in general. Either side could be right in their end game point to accept or deny sentient animals the human rights.
Either way, other seemingly unrelated topics and controversies arise. It would be mostly obvious that an animal who can reason should be protected. However, should that right extend to animals that don't think. Should cattle who never have the destiny to be treated to be able to reason be protected from becoming killed for food, humanely or not. The answer best depends on the method used to create a sentient animal. If the animal was medicated after birth, then the answer is most likely favouring liberating the cattle. If it was prenatal treatment, then the answer would be very wide open. Considering the animal would have near to no capacity to become sentient, which implies equality, the pathway to become food would stay on the table (pun intended).
To a lesser extent, how would pets' rights play out should the typical large canine or feline domestic receive consciousness. In terms of rights, the status would be elevated from simple pet to possible family household member and possibly guardian. This plays apart from but is somewhat influenced by the insistence that 'pets are family.' And no doubt, there would be families flocking to adopt a pet of their own. And looking at the slightly more advanced status that sentient 'pets' have, or a better term would be 'lower household members.' (Something I expect the law to coin for the new individual.), adoption procedures would, if not should, get more stringent to nearly on par with that of a child. I remember coming across a comic called HousePets where the animals typically classified as pets are actually sentient. However, there are many aspects about the comic I can't get over, as it's just too fantasy for me. Nevertheless, the animals don't quite share the same status as children, but are allowed to wander, engage in store purchases, and create their own social castes. Ironically this plays into the social issues I can eventually touch into.
A Safe and Secure Society
How would a society have to adapt. Noting that the situation will hardly be one and done. Once a single laboratory chooses to execute the project, thousands more will endeavor to repeat the result, one, to validate the results in the published finding, and two, to insert their own names into the records of history. And chances are, the decision of animals won't be the same across the board. maybe two of the same species will arise, maybe multiple. And this would be the wave that follows, bringing with it a multitude of new animals with sentience. And should two of the same species seek to reproduce, well, given that they are fully autonomous creatures, who can stop them. So two or four can easily become eight, twenty, and more. So naturally there would be a movement to grant independence on top of rights. So then should they have a quarters in a normal city? Or is it a better service to quasi-rebuild a city to solely fit the needs of nonhumans? A large question as that would have to wait for another time.
But what I can touch on is the immediate effects of society in response to sentient animals. Stores and other businesses would cater mostly to the human side of a situation. For example, in the beginning, sales and promotions would be given to families closely associated with sentient animals. It would only rise at a later time that businesses would begin catering to the nonhuman sentients, especially given that there would be no serious or national ID service in place for animals.
Next Blog Post
As of now, I would cut this blog somewhat short to prevent myself from delving into some things I want to discuss later and just stay on topic now. Hehe, maybe I lost my focus here, who knows?
Anyways, Happy Thinking!
Comments
Post a Comment