• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Androids

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question, so appologies if it isn't.

Androids, being sentient are counted as citizens of the Third Imperium. In that case would they be produced at all? Androids might not want to do what they have been created to do and if they are citizens what rights do they have as far as the imperium is concerned?
 
No LBB at work, what does Book 8 say about androids anyway?
One would need to ask many questions to find a foundation for the answer to this question.
· Do androids have imperially guaranteed rights?
· What kind of maintenance protocol do androids need?
· Would it be illegal to produce an android that was indistinguishable from an organic sophont?
· Who has decided the nature of free will, and did the corporations buy this decision?
· Too many mire for my poor brain to configure into meaningful sentences….

IMTU: Androids are created by companies and/or corporations and would be considered property of said body till it was no longer profitable to keep the "meatbots" on the books (even as a write-off). Several excellent works of fiction are available. I draw some of my android background from an old "White Dwarf" article. This article proposed that corporations would somehow mark their property (unusual skin tones, bar code behind the ear etc.).
 
The fundamental distinction is whether or not the robot is a sophont. If it is just a labor device then it's owned. If it's legally a sophont then it's free (slavery being outlawed in the Imperium).
 
Book 8 doesn't mention androids much at all.

The series of articles on robots in the early Journals mentions androids - as biologically based beings. This made me think more of Bladerunner replicants.

I can't remember many references to androids - pseudo-biological robots are a TL15 development, but are not androids - so I'll have to go and dig.
 
Originally posted by robject:
The fundamental distinction is whether or not the robot is a sophont. If it is just a labor device then it's owned. If it's legally a sophont then it's free (slavery being outlawed in the Imperium).
Not quite true.

The Cymbeline chips were sentient. Imperial scientists "lobotomised" them and enslaved them as starship transponders ;)

Then there are Cleon's declarations:

"Any sentient life form within the Imperial borders, regardless of its origin, is a protected being, and thus a citizen of the Third Imperium";

"One may argue that an intelligent robot might be sentient, but it is definitely not a life form".

Cleon therefore declared robots to be property, not citizens.
 
Androids, being sentient are counted as citizens of the Third Imperium. In that case would they be produced at all?
I dunno, human babies are sentient and they're produced in vast numbers
 
Umm, just to butt in while I'm here briefly...

Androids are (iirc) defined as automatons built in the form of man. No requirement that they be indistinguishable or sentient. Marvin ("Brain the size of planet...") is an android but there's no mistaking from it's construction that it's human, and it is most definitely sentient ("Oh what a curse to be so sentient." ok, not really a quote
) Hal is also sentient (I think, depends on your definition, and that is... another topic
) but not an android.

Anyway just chumming the water and running, have fun...
file_23.gif
 
Originally posted by veltyen:
Human babies are sentient?
Potentially, yes. Admittedly, that's not a question with an obvious answer.

But still, a human has rights from the time it's born (and some would argue that they have rights even before that), even if it's not entirely sentient or self-aware at the time.
 
Human babies are sentient?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What a question !
Produce one, look in its eyes and You will see....
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not arguing that they aren't cute. If babies weren't cute this race would have been shortlived.

If the limitation for sentience is the ability to vomit milk and make nonsense sounds my blender is sentient.

Babies are missing self awareness among other things. At best they are recognisable as something that might gain sentience at a later date, but that would purely be from experience rather then external observation.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to argue that computers aren't sentient and babies are. Adult humans, even quite small children, but not babies.

And yes, I have gone down that path
 
Originally posted by far-trader:
Umm, just to butt in while I'm here briefly...

Androids are (iirc) defined as automatons built in the form of man. No requirement that they be indistinguishable or sentient. Marvin ("Brain the size of planet...") is an android but there's no mistaking from it's construction that it's human, and it is most definitely sentient ("Oh what a curse to be so sentient." ok, not really a quote
) Hal is also sentient (I think, depends on your definition, and that is... another topic
) but not an android.

Anyway just chumming the water and running, have fun...
file_23.gif
In the Robots article in JTAS 2 MWM and LW defined the framework upon which future ref's notes would be built.
Being - self aware, self powered, capable of sensing its environment and reacting to it. Humans, intelligent aliens, robots and androids are all beings.
Robot - a mechanically based artifact manufactured to some set of specifications.
Android - a biologically based being created to some set of specifications. Androids exhibit life, in that they are biologically living; their distinction is that they were created, rather than having evolved.

Marvin the paranoid Android may be an android by Douglas Adams's use of the word, but in Traveller he would be a crudely shaped anthropomorphic contoured chassis ;)
 
But still, a human has rights from the time it's born (and some would argue that they have rights even before that), even if it's not entirely sentient or self-aware at the time.
Be careful about circular arguements. Humans don't have rights because of sentience, so you cannot argue that rights would indicate sentience.

A sentient machine is far more likely to have sentience before it has rights. Some kind of basic legal concept is involved, I cannot remember the term, but basically ruling on something that hasn't occured yet can't be done because you don't have all the facts.

As for circular arguements my current favorite is "Drugs are bad because they are illegal" followed by "Drugs are illegal because they are bad".
 
Malenfant does have a point, though. In many human cultures, humans have rights from the time they are born. Rights reflect cultural attitudes, and many of the cultures that we are familiar with grant certain rights to infants because it is important to the culture to do so.

There are also cultures historically that did not grant rights to humans below the age of eight, or even certain races of humanity because of their origin or appearance, and that's just here on this planet. (Slavery as practiced by the western world in the 1600's through 1800's springs to mind far too easily.)

Sentience in not automatically related to whether or not an entity has rights, though more empathic creatures will tend to feel an obligation to bestow rights on other sentience.

I've always had the opinion that the Third Imperium holds androids as second-class citizens at best, despite the fact that Traveller defines them as created biological lifeforms. I imagine it all depends on whose on the Iridium Throne at the time, really...

"Soapbox" issues like this, unresolved in the OTU, give us fodder for adventure opportunities and campaign scenarios. I like it unresolved, because it creates conflict, and conflict generates action, and action makes the campaign go 'round. ;)

More later,
Flynn
 
The few references I can find are Grandfather's human based androids in a Challenge article and his Droyne based androids mentioned in Adventure 12.

Have there been any other adventure/amber zones that mention androids rather than robots?

Oh, and this may be the first step along the way to an articicial biologically based "machine".
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In the Robots article in JTAS 2 MWM and LW defined the framework upon which future ref's notes would be built.
Being - self aware, self powered, capable of sensing its environment and reacting to it. Humans, intelligent aliens, robots and androids are all beings.
Robot - a mechanically based artifact manufactured to some set of specifications.
Android - a biologically based being created to some set of specifications. Androids exhibit life, in that they are biologically living; their distinction is that they were created, rather than having evolved.

Marvin the paranoid Android may be an android by Douglas Adams's use of the word, but in Traveller he would be a crudely shaped anthropomorphic contoured chassis ;)
These definitions are still being used by Mr. Miller, with one change -- instead of "Being", I think the current term is "Sophont".

In the Traveller Universe, androids are grown in vats, for example. And robots are built in factories -- potentially robotic factories under robot control.
 
Back
Top