Legal requirements for Quarantine

[Drakon]

Given: Imperial Law requires that planets with sentient life forms, but no native jump travel capabilities, are quarantined.

What legal tests would you recommend to determine whether a species was sentient or not?

So far, what I have come up with are the following tests.

1) Self Adornment, i.e. jewelry and clothing that is beyond just functional.

2) Written language

3) 3 Stage Artifacting: To make a tool, it requires a number of steps between the aquisition of materials and its utilization. How many steps does it take to indicate a sufficient level of sentience to render the planet off limits? If it takes more than 3 steps, then that classes the species as sentient for the purposes of law.

4) Farming plants. (See ants and aphids)

5) Mathematical understanding beyond simple addition and subtraction. i.e. Multiplication or geometry

6) Woven cloth. (although this might be a repeat of 3) above)

7) Specialized artifacters. One major difference between a tribe of sophonts and a herd or pride of non-sophonts, is that some members of the group take upon specialized tasks to the exclusion of life maintenence activities such as hunting or gathering food. And the tribe will support these specialized artifactors.

8) Religious views. I know a lot of folks might find this arguable, but I feel that the fact a species has religious views and beliefs is proof of sentience. Whether those views or ideas are correct or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this test. Religion is an attempt to understand the world, and the ability to even ask the question is significant.

Some notes:
a) The rationale for the empire to make these determinations is that history has shown time and time again, when a highly advanced culture meets with a primitive one, the primitive one suffers. The higher technology and lack of understanding by the more primitive tribe leads them to perceive the others as either gods or demons. Both views are incorrect and destructive to either or even both groups. As long as the primitive tribe does not have star travel, they are not a threat to the Empire.
b) The point of these protocols are, first off, to protect and defend the empire. Second to protect the primitive sophonts from destruction, or viewing the Empire as a threat and/or danger. As demons. So that later on, when the Empire does make their existence known to the primitive sophonts, they will not have a negative perception of the Empire. They won't be scared of the Imperium.
c) The threat of being viewed as gods by the less advanced tribe is destructive to that tribe. It is a view that demands help, and makes the primitive tribe dependent on the Imperium, instead of developing and working out their challenges themselves.
d) These test are chosen because they are objectively verifiable. Does the tribe have any or all of these? Yes or no. If they have them, well, the planet is quarentined and no Imperial citizen can exploit its resources, enslave the population, nor endanger their lives and cultures.
e) While a planet is quarantined, this does not preclude the Empire from recon missions and even talking to the inhabitants. This is required actually, as a legitimate function of the Imperial government, in order to protect and defend the Empire whatever potential threats a new species may pose, either now or in the future. It does preclude private citizens from doing this.

So, what do you think?

 

[Gadrin]

I think the IISS and IN use "interdiction" to prevent primitive cultures from being contaminated by the interstellar neighborhood. The IN uses it as punishment, while the IISS uses it more the way we think of.

As such it's probably pretty easy to tell most humanoids; however extremely alien species would take longer to study.

>

 

[aramis]

If the NAS shows sentience, OR, shows presentience and tool use (including decoration).

 

[Doyle Hunt]

Self Adornment, i.e. jewelry and clothing that is beyond just functional.

Not so much. Real-world Earth, many species have preening behavior to seek a mate, so self-adornment could just indicate horniness.

Written language

Written language proves sentience, but is not a requirement for sentience. Humaniti had sentience long before the written word. There's no indication that Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon man had written language, but they were sentient, just not to the same degree as Homo Sapiens (or so we think, because we're still here and they're not. Maybe they were smarter but we breed faster. Who knows? Brings up a point-- There's no reason why a planet needs only one sentient species. Earth had more at one time.)

Names, on the other hand, good indicator for emergent sentience. When creatures refer to themselves as something other than just, "I," and refer to other creatures as something other than, "hey you," that sounds like sentience to me. Especially if they talk about folks who aren't present at the time. There you go! Gossip is the ultimate proof of sentience! Ha!

As a precursor to written language, painting pictures could work as an indicator, too. The use of an image to represent the object is possibly the ultimate early expression of imagination and therefore sentience.

3 Stage Artifacting: To make a tool, it requires a number of steps between the aquisition of materials and its utilization. How many steps does it take to indicate a sufficient level of sentience to render the planet off limits? If it takes more than 3 steps, then that classes the species as sentient for the purposes of law.

I'd phrase it differently (not necessarily 3 stages), but I agree. Simple tool use is not by itself an indicator for sentience. Witness racoons opening mussels with a rock. The ability to use a tool to make other tools (such as shaping a stick with a sharp rock to make a spear) requires imagination and is a prime indicator.

Farming plants. (See ants and aphids)

Not so much. Farming is an attempt to adapt the environment to suit the life form, rather than the life form adapting to suit the envionment. Unfortunately, beavers prove that adapting the environment isn't proof of sentience. With regard to farming in particular, hunter/gatherers can be sentient as well without ever planting a thing.

Mathematical understanding beyond simple addition and subtraction. i.e. Multiplication or geometry

Sentience doesn't require math, though math does require sentience. Romans couldn't do complex math. They didn't even have the zero. Besides, anything other than counting really requires either written or spoken language (or else how do you know the creature is doing math in its head?) so you're back to the language isue again.

Woven cloth. (although this might be a repeat of 3) above)

If clothes are tools to keep the body warm, then needles to make cloth are tools to make other tools, as above. But again, woven cloth is not a good benchmark. Cloth requires sentience, but sentience doesn't require cloth. They could wear animal skins. Or grass skirts.

Specialized artifacters. One major difference between a tribe of sophonts and a herd or pride of non-sophonts, is that some members of the group take upon specialized tasks to the exclusion of life maintenence activities such as hunting or gathering food. And the tribe will support these specialized artifactors.

You're mentioning specialized tool-makers (artifactors), which takes you back to a previous point. What you're really thinking of here is trade, even if it's only at a barter level. That goes back to imagination again, being able to imagine the idea that a tool is worth food instead of only being used to gather it. Good indicator. Barter of dissimilar items, yes (Damn it! My digging stick is worth FOUR rabbit skins, not three, you thief!). However, bartering one food item for another food item, not so much. (I had nuts yesterday; I'll give them to you if you give me some berries.)

Religious views. I know a lot of folks might find this arguable, but I feel that the fact a species has religious views and beliefs is proof of sentience. Whether those views or ideas are correct or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this test. Religion is an attempt to understand the world, and the ability to even ask the question is significant

Yes! The concept of an afterlife absolutely requires imagination, which means sentience. Unfortunately, to prove that a religion exists, you have to be able to communicate with the culture, which means you've already proven sentience some other way. Otherwise any kind of ritual could just be learned behavior, not an indication of sentience. If you couldn't speak any native language, and saw someone looking up into a cloudless sky and clapping their manupulative apendages three times, could you tell that he, she, or it is praying? Maybe it's that planet's version of a bird call for a hunting lure instead.

Take away cultural biases, and anything that proves imagination instead of just learned behavior indicates sentience, or enough to warrant further study. It may be that your interdiction is lifted when a scout team discovers that the initial indications were wrong (no, rubbing two sticks together to make fire isn't an indication of sentience this time, it's just a damned long-range mating call), but life is like that.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Fire-building seems to be an indication of the separation between pre-sentient and 'Stone Age' intelligence. Stone working is an offshoot (or the other way around) of that intelligence. Once stone shaping comes along, it seems to up the intelligence - or maybe it's just from getting more reliable food.

Here's a good source:

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org

Now, this wouldn't work in a water environment.

 

[dean]

I would consider dolphins pre-sentient, at the least, but they meet none of the requirements listed and it's unlikely they could.

I think communication with exchange of ideas sums it up, but is hard to establish.

 

[aramis]

The Neural Activity Scanner would tell the difference nicely, Dean. Best addition from DGP.... and part of Canon, courtesy of MT.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

C'mon Aramis, how can it tell the difference between "Cogito, Ergo Sum" and "oh boy, food! my favorite thing! yummmmmmm, yummmmmmm, oh boy, a stick to chase! yeah!"

The neurons in a dog's brain are going a mile a minute, they're just not getting anywhere other than "must wag tail more!"

 

[aramis]

Not my problem to explain the technobabble device's mechanism, just my problem to know how PC's interface with it and what it can/cannot do.

 

[Drakon]

Not so much. Real-world Earth, many species have preening behavior to seek a mate, so self-adornment could just indicate horniness.

First off, there is a difference between preening and self adornment, using or making items to wear on one's body. As far as I know, humans are the only ones who do that, on this planet. Granted some dogs will wear bandanas and hats, but mostly its only because people put them on dogs. And dogs are too polite to make a fuss. Cats on the other hand...

Written language proves sentience, but is not a requirement for sentience. Humaniti had sentience long before the written word. There's no indication that Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon man had written language, but they were sentient, just not to the same degree as Homo Sapiens (or so we think, because we're still here and they're not. Maybe they were smarter but we breed faster. Who knows? Brings up a point-- There's no reason why a planet needs only one sentient species. Earth had more at one time.)

Names, on the other hand, good indicator for emergent sentience. When creatures refer to themselves as something other than just, "I," and refer to other creatures as something other than, "hey you," that sounds like sentience to me. Especially if they talk about folks who aren't present at the time. There you go! Gossip is the ultimate proof of sentience! Ha!

As a precursor to written language, painting pictures could work as an indicator, too. The use of an image to represent the object is possibly the ultimate early expression of imagination and therefore sentience.

What we want are clear objectives tests, clear proofs, a legal definition. With written language, rather than spoken, you do not have to decypher the language in order to declare the species sentient.

Now it may seem rather arbitrary, but that is beside the point. The color of traffic lights are an arbitrary choice. But you run a red light, enter an intersection while the light is red, you have violated the law. You have a written language, your planet is quarentined until you reach starflight capabilities.

Not so much. Farming is an attempt to adapt the environment to suit the life form, rather than the life form adapting to suit the envionment. Unfortunately, beavers prove that adapting the environment isn't proof of sentience. With regard to farming in particular, hunter/gatherers can be sentient as well without ever planting a thing.

This one may need defining, and a lot of these will fall under the 3 stage rule. I am thinking like ordered rows, irrigation, plowed fields

Sentience doesn't require math, though math does require sentience.

Exactly why it is part of the test. You can't do multiplication tables unless you got some smarts.

Romans couldn't do complex math. They didn't even have the zero. Besides, anything other than counting really requires either written or spoken language (or else how do you know the creature is doing math in its head?) so you're back to the language isue again.[/quote}Romans could do multiplication and division, and had geometry. Even if you ignore this point, they still satisfied many other tests. And since the test is an non-exclusive "or", they still pass as sentience.

If clothes are tools to keep the body warm, then needles to make cloth are tools to make other tools, as above. But again, woven cloth is not a good benchmark. Cloth requires sentience, but sentience doesn't require cloth. They could wear animal skins. Or grass skirts.[/quote] The point is that clothes require sentience, the fact that sentience does not require clothes is irrelevant to the test. You run around naked, you may or may not be sentient. If you are reading a nudist magazine, well, that proves you are sentient. At least as far as the imperial courts are concerned.

You're mentioning specialized tool-makers (artifactors), which takes you back to a previous point. What you're really thinking of here is trade, even if it's only at a barter level. That goes back to imagination again, being able to imagine the idea that a tool is worth food instead of only being used to gather it. Good indicator. Barter of dissimilar items, yes (Damn it! My digging stick is worth FOUR rabbit skins, not three, you thief!). However, bartering one food item for another food item, not so much. (I had nuts yesterday; I'll give them to you if you give me some berries.)

The exchange of one item for another may not be as easily determined, whether its trade, compensated theft, or something else. On the other hand, if you have a guy just hanging around the village, beating stones together, (to make Clovis points) instead of going on the hunt.. wel then.

Yes! The concept of an afterlife absolutely requires imagination, which means sentience. Unfortunately, to prove that a religion exists, you have to be able to communicate with the culture, which means you've already proven sentience some other way. Otherwise any kind of ritual could just be learned behavior, not an indication of sentience. If you couldn't speak any native language, and saw someone looking up into a cloudless sky and clapping their manupulative apendages three times, could you tell that he, she, or it is praying? Maybe it's that planet's version of a bird call for a hunting lure instead.

Good point. But from the empire's standpoint, what the religious views are, become a key piece of intel.

Take away cultural biases, and anything that proves imagination instead of just learned behavior indicates sentience, or enough to warrant further study. It may be that your interdiction is lifted when a scout team discovers that the initial indications were wrong (no, rubbing two sticks together to make fire isn't an indication of sentience this time, it's just a damned long-range mating call), but life is like that.

So, you think maybe there should be a minimum number of tests passed to prove sentience?

 

[Drakon]

Fire-building seems to be an indication of the separation between pre-sentient and 'Stone Age' intelligence. Stone working is an offshoot (or the other way around) of that intelligence. Once stone shaping comes along, it seems to up the intelligence - or maybe it's just from getting more reliable food.

Here's a good source:

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org

Now, this wouldn't work in a water environment.

Making and harnessing fire is a great test. How could I have missed that one.

Stone tools I believe fall under the 3 stage rule. Even if you gloss over it and show the stages as 1) make Clovis point, 2) get stick, 3) attach point to stick, it still comes out as 3 stages. Also your average stone age spear required 3 materials, Stick, stone and leather or sinew strap to attach point to stick.

 

[Drakon]

I would consider dolphins pre-sentient, at the least, but they meet none of the requirements listed and it's unlikely they could.

I think communication with exchange of ideas sums it up, but is hard to establish.

From a legal standpoint, I feel that "pre-sentience" would end up a trap. Interstellar enviro-nazis who do not want humaniti to expand would use it to get as many planets as possible declared out of bounds. And since it is difficult to provide a clear objective test for presentience, from the law's standpoint, I would argue that the law should ignore the entire classification. It's either a sentient species or it ain't. No middle ground.

Also, from a more pragmatic veiwpoint, if the species is incapable of artifacting, it should not be a problem to the imperium. They won't be making guns, or bombs, or really in any way become an interstellar threat, (as long as nobody makes them pets and take them offworld. But even then they do not pose much of a potential threat)

And the exchange of ideas needs work, which is why I think written language is a better indicator. Again, you do not need to translate it.

 

[BigBadRon]

4) Farming plants. (See ants and aphids)

This definitely falls down when considering ants.

Leafcutter ants carry pieces of leaf back to their nests, where they use them as a growth medium/fertiliser for a type of fungus which the ants eat. The ants even use special chambers in the nest for just this purpose, so they are creating "fields" to grow their crop in, and they clear out parasites and fungi that are the wrong variety, as well as fighting off other animals which would eat the fungus.

 

[Doyle Hunt]

So, you think maybe there should be a minimum number of tests passed to prove sentience?

Ah! There's where I missed the point. You were looking to PROVE sentience. I was orienting my comments to DETECTING sentience.

In your Traveller universe, unproven sentients would not get interdicted, but proven sentients would. Seems backwards to me. I would think that potential sentients should be interdicted until proven non-sentient.

 

[aramis]

Doyle: that interdicts all worlds with animals.

The other issue is how to prove the animals are not sentient when landing is a death sentence...

 

[BlackBat242]

Well, most human aboriginal groups (American Indian tribes, Amazonian rain-forest dwellers, Eskimos, etc) HAD NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE until contacted by "more civilized" humans, so you say they weren't Sentient?

There are still some today that have no written language... what of them?

Get this one out of your criteria... unless you make possession of a minimum numbers of lessor (or one major) qualifying characteristic sufficient as proof.

Trying to require all (or even most) of your list is nothing more than a scheme to classify almost no species as sentient.

 

[Doyle Hunt]

Without arguing specific behaviors or accomplishments (that didn't get me very far last time!) I stand by my assertion that the mark of sentience is imagination. Not necessarily anything that requires hands or speech. Examine any species, and you will see instinctive and/or learned behaviors, but only a sentient species can imagine things that do not exist or cannot be proven. All other examples given seem to proceed from that point (such as creating those things that don't exist).

Of course, it's entirely possible that the surveyors examining a world WOULD drag their cultural biases along, and mistakenly classify a sentient species as non-sentient because they were looking for specific behaviors that they expect and fail to find.

That would handily set up an adventure, where the travellers discover that a species has been misidentified, though ignoriance or malfeasance. Classifiying a sentient species as non-sentient because they have no written language (or whatever) would give developers the opportunity to exploit a planet's resources that they otherwise couldn't. Who else but the intrepid travellers can set things right?

 

[Drakon]

Trying to require all (or even most) of your list is nothing more than a scheme to classify almost no species as sentient.

Exactly. Therefore any potential sophont would have to meet any single one of the criteria in order to classed as sentience. Just one would class it as sentient. 3 stage artifact making making will probably be the one most often invoked. Fire would also be a biggie. This points out how bad it would be to have just one criteria.

 

[Drakon]

Without arguing specific behaviors or accomplishments (that didn't get me very far last time!) I stand by my assertion that the mark of sentience is imagination. Not necessarily anything that requires hands or speech. Examine any species, and you will see instinctive and/or learned behaviors, but only a sentient species can imagine things that do not exist or cannot be proven. All other examples given seem to proceed from that point (such as creating those things that don't exist).

I can't argue with you, I think you are on to something. The trick is to use objective evidence that proves imagination. Now what other objective evidence can be used as proof of imagination?

Of course, it's entirely possible that the surveyors examining a world WOULD drag their cultural biases along, and mistakenly classify a sentient species as non-sentient because they were looking for specific behaviors that they expect and fail to find.

That is what I am trying to avoid by posting this. See what other ideas are out there. In order to avoid things like cultural bias, and avoid mistakes in classification.

Imperial policy is dicitated by the the twin ideals of progress through diversity, and protection of the Empire from threats to life, and property. It has the power to utterly destroy any emerging species, thereby eliminating the threat before it hurts any imperial citizens. Of course, most folks would call that genocide, and it would weaken diversity and therefore progress.

That would handily set up an adventure, where the travellers discover that a species has been misidentified, though ignoriance or malfeasance. Classifiying a sentient species as non-sentient because they have no written language (or whatever) would give developers the opportunity to exploit a planet's resources that they otherwise couldn't. Who else but the intrepid travellers can set things right?

First off, they would have to have NONE of the items in order to avoid mis-classification.

Second, as it is a "None of the above" type of thing that gets you classed as non-sentient, there has to be a reason such evidence was hidden, or alternately, why any addition to the list should be admitted. What makes you think they are sentient, when the survey teams, and verication bureaucracy says they are not?

Or, alternately, who got them to get rid of their stone spear points, clothing, and other artifacts?

 

[Doyle Hunt]

Or, alternately, who got them to get rid of their stone spear points, clothing, and other artifacts?

See, there's a cultural bias trap right there. Stone spear points. A spear doesn't need a stone point; it could just be a sharpened (as opposed to merely sharp) stick.

So: "They use sharp sticks, but so what? A found object as a tool proves nothing." versus "They use sharpened sticks. Leave them alone." Unless the surveyors actually see the spear being shaped, will they be able to tell the difference?

Artifacts are nice as proof, but do they prove sentience, or sapience? Behavior is really the key to unequivocable classification.

So, the whole "three-stage tool-making" thing, if broadened to "perform three-stage tasks" could work. The ability to PLAN a task in advance, even if it involves no tools, instead of just using instinctive or rote-learned behavior, is proof.