Why Germany Matters

[Max Schreck]

Another potential source of conflict you could examine, Jürgen, is the emancipation of bioroids in the EU. One could imagine that not all Europeans were equally happy that genetically engineered biological constructs are considered full citizens. Some could be afraid of them, because they are "unnatural" and others could resent that bioroids cannot be property as elsewhere in the world. Maybe bioroid hate groups would arise, much as we have xenophobic and homophobic groups today.

You know, something like: "Europe for baseline humans!" or "Deport the fakes!" These hate groups could be responsible for violent assaults or even bombings of bioroid halfway houses and assassinations of "bioroid-friendly" politicians. These tactics would seldom be successful due to effective law enforcement, but the sentiments could be there in a minority nonetheless.

Just some random thoughts.

Max

[Tzeentch]

* TS is ridiculously optimistic in certain social predictions, especially in how it pretty much discounts any meaningful rise in identity politics. Giving "human rights" to beings that are demonstrably not human in any way (biology, thought processes, etc) should be political and social dynamite but everyone just shrugged their shoulders I guess :) Given the violence we see today over rather trivial things, I suspect that things are not quite so simple as laid out in broad strokes by Fifth Wave.

* However, keep in mind we are dealing with a world in which neoclassical economics has pretty much been thrown out the window and social systems are transitioning rapidly to a nearly post-scarcity model for manufactured items. There is also memetics to consider, and bioroids/SAIs designed with "national characteristics" in mind may appeal strongly to conservative elements that at first glance might oppose such things. If you can build citizens with Duty (Home Country) (even at a quirk level) ...

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tzeentch

* TS is ridiculously optimistic in certain social predictions, especially in how it pretty much discounts any meaningful rise in identity politics. Giving "human rights" to beings that are demonstrably not human in any way (biology, thought processes, etc) should be political and social dynamite but everyone just shrugged their shoulders I guess :) Given the violence we see today over rather trivial things, I suspect that things are not quite so simple as laid out in broad strokes by Fifth Wave.

Huh? Look at the table of rights in the core book. There are lots of places where rights of nonhumans are severely limited. Bioroids are slaves in most parts of the world, and harshly abused slaves in the Islamic Caliphate; AIs are property in many jurisdictions; AIs without restrictive programming, or xoxes of AIs or digital ghosts, are abominations without even the right to life.

Europe is consciously more liberal than most places . . . but its AIs have to be programmed to obey European law, which is fairly restrictive in a lot of ways. And bioroids, though they have many rights, are denied the right to reproduce . . . because their exercise of that right would entail bioroid manufacture, which is illegal.

My THS campaign had, as a background incident, a suit brought by a European bioroid demanding the right to (a) make a bioroid within the EU as her child and (b) freely use the proprietary genetic codes of the corporation that built her in doing so, notwithstanding their copyrights. I think that illustrates some of the possible issues.

Bill Stoddard

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And bioroids, though they have many rights, are denied the right to reproduce . . . because their exercise of that right would entail bioroid manufacture, which is illegal.

Bill Stoddard

So can Bioroids adopt human babies in the EU? or maybe humans that donate their genetic material so their bioroid friend can give birth to their very own human baby.

[Max Schreck]

Originally Posted by Tzeentch

* TS is ridiculously optimistic in certain social predictions, especially in how it pretty much discounts any meaningful rise in identity politics. Giving "human rights" to beings that are demonstrably not human in any way (biology, thought processes, etc) should be political and social dynamite but everyone just shrugged their shoulders I guess :) Given the violence we see today over rather trivial things, I suspect that things are not quite so simple as laid out in broad strokes by Fifth Wave.

As William already stated above, the EU is almost the only place in the entire solar system where bioroids are free rather than indentured or even enslaved. Even in the free-wheeling anarcho-capitalist Duncanite space settlements, where one would think anything goes, bioroids have fewer rights than other biosapients and are not considered citizens or "people" for that matter.

Ostensibly advanced and enlightened societies such as the Pacific Rim Alliance and the U.S. regard bioroids as biological machines bred for labour wit fewer rights than "real people," and other than the EU, South Africa and post-human settlements such as Seventh Heaven, that is the prevailing attitude throughout the solar system.

Look it up. There's a handy table on p. 127 that neatly summarizes factions' and nations' attitude toward post-human intelligence.

[Tzeentch]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Huh? Look at the table of rights in the core book. There are lots of places where rights of nonhumans are severely limited. Bioroids are slaves in most parts of the world, and harshly abused slaves in the Islamic Caliphate; AIs are property in many jurisdictions; AIs without restrictive programming, or xoxes of AIs or digital ghosts, are abominations without even the right to life.

* I'm looking at the table on p. TS127 and nowhere are bioroids subject to no rights at all (A). Inferior is most common, but even that carries with it certain 'human' rights and legal protections.
* You are correct about AIs though, I had forgotten how many places had them in the Animal category.

Europe is consciously more liberal than most places . . . but its AIs have to be programmed to obey European law, which is fairly restrictive in a lot of ways. And bioroids, though they have many rights, are denied the right to reproduce . . . because their exercise of that right would entail bioroid manufacture, which is illegal.

* Source for the AI programming statement? I don't see it in THS or FW.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Tzeentch

* Source for the AI programming statement? I don't see it in THS or FW.

Aren't most citizen AIs programmed to be Honest?

It's been a while since I've read all the books - and it's about time I reread them anyway for this project - but I think I remember reading that somewhere...

[PK]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Aren't most citizen AIs programmed to be Honest?

Yes, absolutely. In fact, any who've been hacked (or who've evolved) to lack that disadvantage are considered rogue and usually hunted in panic. Outside of Duncanite clans and such, the world is terrified of AIs without strict pseudo-moral-legalistic constraints.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Yes, absolutely. In fact, any who've been hacked (or who've evolved) to lack that disadvantage are considered rogue and usually hunted in panic. Outside of Duncanite clans and such, the world is terrified of AIs without strict pseudo-moral-legalistic constraints.

Yes, and that gave me a plot in Whispers: The synthespian Atene (whom I originally created for Toxic Memes), having awakened from LAI to SAI, lacked Honesty codes. When her cover was blown by her being xoxed by a Bangladesh InVid production firm, she had to flee to the underwater colony city in the Pacific, where she voluntarily revealed her own status, offered to submit to having her code edited, but pleaded for the right to live without Honesty code, on the ground that human beings were allowed to live without being programmed to be good and law-abiding, and that she had a record of doing her job and not wronging anyone and did not need hard code to compel her to be moral. In fact, she felt that having hard code would diminish her, in that it would deprive her of the opportunity to acquire merit by voluntarily choosing to lead an ethical life. At the end of the campaign, if I recall correctly, the court still hadn't reached a decision. . . .

You know, a nontrivial part of that campaign consisted of the PCs being made aware of some legal question.

Bill Stoddard

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Yes, absolutely. In fact, any who've been hacked (or who've evolved) to lack that disadvantage are considered rogue and usually hunted in panic. Outside of Duncanite clans and such, the world is terrified of AIs without strict pseudo-moral-legalistic constraints.

Indeed. And that provides plenty of plot-fodder even for nations where SAIs are considered citizens. Who gets to do the core programming of SAIs, and what parameters can they choose?