PDA

View Full Version : Interspecies Romance



golentan
2014-04-28, 07:44 PM
Soo... I may have derailed a support thread by asking what people thought of relationships between members of separate species, supposing of course that everyone involved was sapient and consenting. I am curious about people's thoughts on the matter, and would like to ask people to be polite and express their opinions honestly.


Yes, there are nuances. Overall point still stands. That is what I require to be okay with the relationship/act. And there are nuances to that to, please don't start calling out examples of stuff that technically clears the questions but is bad.


Hum, not that I particularly mind, but could the dolphin discussion be taken to spoilers or something?

This proposition is problematic because it assumes that what is inferior by it's "consciousness" -- whatever that means -- is a child. It transposes differences in "consciousness" as differences in age. Not counting actual youth, the same sort of analogy has been used to marginalize people with mental disabilities, non-European cultures ("Primitive people are humanity in its childhood") and, arguably, women, who have all been categorized as minors in some way, and still are in some cases. So yeah.

In any case, what matters is consent. It's really a yes/no answer: can you consent to sexual relationship? There are very few in-betweens. Normal humans would still be able to consent in your "advanced consciousness" scenario, so there wouldn't be any problem.




That depends entirely on what you think of as 'paedophilia' I would think. By modern human standards, a significant gap in age or maturity doesn't preclude a legal relationship (so long as both partners are of a consenting age); I'm pretty sure the issue is whether both individuals meet the same minimum threshold at which they can understand (at least, to a sufficient degree) the potential consequences of their relationship and intimacy. Though that becomes a bit hazy if the relationship isn't one that could "bear fruit", so to speak, in the first place; even if we assume the theoretical nonhuman partner is sexually compatible with their human counterpart, it's probable even in the most fluffy of science fiction that they have no chance of conceiving. Thus the concerns become ones of physical well-being, rather than having to deal with unintentional baby-related issues.

I suppose if you think about it in terms of the more advanced intelligence potentially coercing their partner, then it could be an issue in a similar vein.

I could also be missing the point completely. I honestly haven't given much thought to this sort of issue before.


I'm gonna be that guy (well, that girl) and point out that while it's technically true, it can be hard to tell when is something safe even when everybody agrees on the same definition of "safety", soundness of mind is a continuum rather than a binary thing, and the third part should be easier than the rest (safe for the part where power relations, and maturity necessary to understand the consequences of that consent, come into play).
Because it's easier said than done, it's something we still have to think about.

This was Musashi's pedant minute!


Is whatever they're doing safe, are they both of sound mind, and are they giving and able to give consent? Answer yes to all, then it's okay.


Is there a point where advanced consciousness gets so far ab0ove human consciousness that a relationship with a human would be analogous to intraspecies paedophilia?


Ooh also, 'The Ship Who Sang'.

How do we feel about relationships between consenting, adult, disembodied cognitive organs and baseline humans?


I actually have a similar situation, except that I'm not trans. It does work, if the birth name isn't too strongly coded (like Bobbie can be a girl name) to just explain "Oh, my mam calls me Bobbie, family thing." But do you know, my mother (and father) have called me by my birth name in front of people I've just been introduced to by the name I use now, and most of the time? They literally do not notice it. It doesn't register. If most of your friends know your real name, it's not going to be a big deal if your mam calls you Bobbie for a while. (Also, your chosen name is gorgeous, nice job!)



It's all about fully consenting adults for me. If everyone is a person who is fully capable of free consent (not a child, fully sentient, fully aware, no coercion, no or negligible power differential), all is well.



I haven't, but I've heard it's really well done. I want to see it, but I get really upset by creepy / dark movies (and other fiction) these days. I guess I'll try to catch up when I'm no longer reliant on antidepressants to keep my mind together when it gets dark!



It actually sounds to me like he might be experiencing the early growth of his sexual orientation, and might be gay. Of course, he also might be trans or he might be cis-hetero, but just because I don't think anyone mentioned it, I'm going to say he might be gay. He might think "I am a boy and I do boy things and have boy parts" and also "but I want to kiss other boys like a girl does" and therefore express that as "half boy and half girl".

You might be able to find children's books that have gay and/or trans characters in them, or you might have gay and/or trans people in your life or in the popular culture your household consumes that you could open gentle conversations about. Things like "Next week, I am going to a wedding, where Mary will marry Patrick. Do you know about weddings? When two people love each other, they have a wedding to be married, like I did with your daddy . Most often, a boy and a girl get married, but sometimes a boy marries a boy." If you have some conversations at his level on surrounding topics (kissing, consensual expressions of affection, weddings/marriage, girl/boy clothes, girl/boy parts, etc), he'll learn the language around this stuf, and be better able to express himself. Then you'll have a better idea of how he's feeling. And, of course, lots of "Sometimes a boy marries a boy / she was born with boy parts but actually when she grew up she realised she was a girl and told everyone / some people are different and that's okay."




Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think there's a general discomfort inherent to humans in trying to conceive of a relationship (especially an intimate one) between two partners who seem incompatible. I feel like it's the same sort of thing that causes negative reactions to homosexual couples, or trans couples; I've had tinges of that with regards to a cisgender female/transwoman (no surgery) lesbian couple. Cognitive dissonance or something, I would guess.

This is also interesting with regards to a topic that was discussed in my philosophy class today; a lawyer suing on behalf of a chimpanzee over poor living conditions was met with arguments that could've just as easily been over woman's rights or racial equality a few dozen years ago.

I make no claims about the rights of animals or how humans ought to interact with them, personally. I'm just tossing some ideas out there.


Humans are just (sapient) animals.


Interesting question. Right now, I'm watching [I]Real Humans (pretty good series, I'd sum it up as a version of Chobits taken seriously to all its logical conclusions), and I feel it's helping me express how I feel about any kind of relations between humans and non-human intelligent entities.

Early in the series, we see humans who claim to be in a relationship with their hubot (aka their human-looking robot of ambiguous intelligence).
I find that morally icky in this context for a specific reason, even if we consider the non-free hubots to be fully sapient (and I do, given they're able to make independent, personal decisions that don't seem to be intended in their programming): no matter what, the hubot are still not treated as humans or as equal of humans. If the humans in the relationship consider their hubot partners to be sapient enough to agree to that relationship without feeling forced to accept their owner's wish, then why are they okay with everybody else using hubots as slaves, and why do they keep giving orders to their partners, knowing fully well they're not authorised to refuse? If they don't consider them sufficiently sapient, then why would they consider this a consensual relationship?
This relationship is icky because it does not respect the intellectual capacity or the nature of the non-human. It's icky before of the hypocrisy.

In the case of an uplifted dolphin? For starters, you'd raise a lot of ethical questions that need to be discussed between the two partners in order to assess the situation better (Do all dolphins have potential for sapience? Are all dolphins already sapient, just not in a way that humans can acknowledge? Can the uplifted dolphin still communicate meaningfully with other dolphins? Do they consider themselves the same species as non-uplifted dolphins? Is sapience something that could be taken away from them? Why was the dolphin uplifted?, etc).
That's complicated, so let's try and ignore that for an instant by saying that the other dolphins are currently in a good situation and aren't particularly oppressed.
Are each partner acknowledging that the other has particular limitations because of their nature? Just like a hubot needs help in order to be free and be able to ignore orders, a human can't live underwater on their own without specific technology, nor can a dolphin live above ground or use object that necessitate hands or feet without technology (unless they're very mutated too, but in that case, that's hardly a dolphin anymore, is it?).
Long story short, make sure the human is really in love with the uplifted dolphin, not with the idea of an uplifted dolphin. It can be difficult when you've not met many sapient dolphins in your life. I guess.
To be fair, that's general advice. Many people love their ideal of a partner more than they love their actual partner, straight or not.
Morally and ethically, it would get a ton more complicated if the human is responsible for the dolphin's life or sapience. I personally would say it's a big no-no for me in that case. For the same reason a parent is not supposed to be in a relationship with their child.


I guess the best solution is not to make a big deal out of it. Let him figure things out on his own, but if he ever comes to you or expresses doubts about something that might be actually about him, be ready to join him and support him actively. Also, little things. If he's saying he met someone, ask "Oh, and what's his or her name?" instead of just "what's her name?". Or if he looks for ideas for a disguise, don't give ideas that are just masculine, you can also suggest he be a witch or a fairy. Anywhere where gender might be relevant, try and remember to give him other options than him being male, and his partner being female.
He's pretty young, and if he's not able yet to express what he means by being half-boy and half-girl, then it might just be a thing of the moment. He might grow out of it and never remember even talking about it. Or he might not, and feel he's not just a boy. Don't stress out too much about it, but don't dismiss anything he might say, either.
Using male pronouns isn't a bad thing, I think. After all, you're not sure, he might not be sure either, and statistically, it's safer to call male-bodied children "he" unless they clearly express another wish.


But... It's still an animal physically?
It's sentience would help things slightly.. But it's still an animal.:smallconfused:
If the other half of the relationship was something like Aqua-man, or a merfolk, I could see it.. But a normal human and a (albeit sapient) dolphin is just off putting..


I'm assuming "Uplifted" to mean in some way awakened and sapient. Not sure what you're reading there.


Re Interspecies Erotica: I do know a couple of other species I would not mind shipping with myself, including one Asari in particular...

But I digress. So long as both sides can consent, refuse, and understand what they are doing, I have no problem with it.


I'll be honest here.. even if they were over aggressive, they were in the right.. even if it's "non sexual", you're still shipping an animal and a human.
If it were an anthropomorphic/furry I might be able to see it a little better, but if it's fully an animal...:smalleek:


Welcome to every "intelligent" discussion [or news story, or documentary, or parental discussion, or religious condemnation, or etc.] about how f'd up all furry art is ever, regardless of context or who's in the pictures. You get used to the comments, trust me.
As for my own stance on the matter, that should be fairly obvious.


I think the point is that they're both sentient. So it's not like the typical dolphin out at sea. This one can express that, yes, it does love the human it is engaging with. It's like Mister Ed and Wilbur getting it on. They are both speaking, intelligent, sentient beings. Where Wilber getting it on with Hopscotch, the non-speaking, animal intelligence horse is wrong, because Hopscotch can't give consent.

{Hopscotch is a name I just made up, and (I believe) was never on the show Mr Ed.}


Interspecies relationships tend to give me a weird sort of negative gut response. But it's not really my business what other people do and a lot of human-human relationships give me the same feeling. So whatever, as long as they're both consenting adults.
Although again I have mixed feelings about two species with hugely different lifespans. Even if you have proportionately slowed neurological and emotional development on the part of the longer-lived member of the relationship, as in some fictional species, the experiential gap makes me feel pretty weird about it.


What happens between at least two sophonts behind closed doors is their business.


Hmm... I don't find the sexual implications disturbing, myself. I mostly break the world into three categories, mentally: Objects, Animals, and People, and I don't much care what shell you wrap it in. A human body with a severely damaged brain is likely to be an animal or an object depending on severity, whereas a machine that can express thoughts and desires is as much a person as anyone else. After that, whatever means of congress are used to express love are at best tangential to the fact the love exists. Assuming the relationship is based on love, though I think I'd be disturbed if they only were together for the sexytimes (but that goes in general).


As long as they're consenting and don't force me to watch them having sex, I... might think it's icky but that's an impulse I can suppress.


If they're sentient enough to consent, I think it's okay. I wonder where you posted that stuff - most fanfiction sites I know are full of dragon/human or human/werecat and so on (the non-human is in most cases a shapeshifter, though), and a sentient dolphin in a romantic relationship with a human shouldn't raise too many eyebrows.

Admittedly I do find interspecies sex very icky, but if the author doesn't mention the sex, it's okay. (The implications of Hagrid, the half-giant from Harry Potter are, if you think about it, somewhat icky, too.)


Lex-Kat: I'm sorry your mom isn't budging on the name, but it may just be a case of too much too quickly and she might still come around. I'd keep an eye on the coworkers, though, my Ex's angst about transitioning mostly came from a hostile work environment that started off not too bad.

I'm putting off sleeping because I know this is going to be a nightmare night for me. I keep thinking of people I've lost over the years, and it's freaking me out. So, in an attempt to distract myself from this, I'm going to type something here, as soon as I come up with a relevant topic.

Umm...

Yeah...

Oh! How do people here feel about interspecies relationships between sentient consenting individuals? I got flack recently for shipping (not erotic fanfiction or anything, just "I think they'd make a cute couple) an uplifted dolphin with a human (there was a lot of talk about bestiality) and I noticed that a lot of the people criticizing were also using rhetoric similar to anti gay stuff...


So, one of the objections seems to be that the given example was distinctly non-humanoid. Is that a dealbreaker for people? Would, for example, Captain Kirk be preferable to Captain Jack by virtue of pursuing humanoid aliens? If so, why is shape so relevant? I am genuinely curious and trying to understand.

GoblinArchmage
2014-04-28, 08:00 PM
Tl;dr: "Am I allowed to have sex with dolphins?"

Yeah. Sure, buddy. Just be sure to use a condom so you don't get DIV (Dolphin Immunodeficiency Virus).

RavynsLand
2014-04-28, 08:02 PM
Last I checked dolphins were cool with it so go right ahead.

Eldest
2014-04-28, 08:10 PM
Tl;dr: "Am I allowed to have sex with dolphins?"

Yeah. Sure, buddy. Just be sure to use a condom so you don't get DIV (Dolphin Immunodeficiency Virus).

No. TL DR: are sapiant dolphins still okay for humans to have sex with? A bit more specific than all dolphins.

noparlpf
2014-04-28, 08:11 PM
Tl;dr: "Am I allowed to have sex with dolphins?"

Yeah. Sure, buddy. Just be sure to use a condom so you don't get DIV (Dolphin Immunodeficiency Virus).

That's not what the question was. Maybe next time you should actually read the whole thing. It isn't really too long.

GoblinArchmage
2014-04-28, 08:17 PM
That's not what the question was. Maybe next time you should actually read the whole thing. It isn't really too long.

Wearing a condom sounds like pretty good advice to me, regardless of what the question was.

Jaycemonde
2014-04-28, 08:19 PM
That's not what the question was. Maybe next time you should actually read the whole thing. It isn't really too long.

There's this thing about people who don't actually care about a conversation impulsively responding in a snarky way because they feel it makes them look cool.

golentan
2014-04-28, 08:23 PM
Wearing a condom sounds like pretty good advice to me, regardless of what the question was.

There are some questions where wearing a condom is the wrong answer.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voting_machines.png

Anyway, I'm interested in judging people's reactions, preferably well before it's likely to become a legitimate social issue, rather than having my eye on a particular case. It seems likely to me that in the next couple hundred years at most, humans won't be the only intelligent beings on this planet (whether through AIs or Uplifted or Artificial animals or some combination), and I'm trying to gauge reactions to the idea of human/non-human couples before it's an issue that directly affects anyone I'm emotionally invested in.

noparlpf
2014-04-28, 08:25 PM
There are some questions where wearing a condom is the wrong answer.

"Hey, mum, what's for dinner?"
"Wear a condom."
"...uh."


Anyway, I'm interested in judging people's reactions, preferably well before it's likely to become a legitimate social issue, rather than having my eye on a particular case. It seems likely to me that in the next couple hundred years at most, humans won't be the only intelligent beings on this planet (whether through AIs or Uplifted or Artificial animals or some combination), and I'm trying to gauge reactions to the idea of human/non-human couples before it's an issue that directly affects anyone I'm emotionally invested in.

By the way, I just remembered an article from a while back. Some government somewhere decided dolphins count as "non-human persons" or some such and banned dolphin shows and the like.

TheThan
2014-04-28, 08:28 PM
Unless we’re talking about green skinned alien space babes, I’m not interested.
Now on to dolphins, assuming as you say said dolphin is sentient and consenting, how would you really known? They can’t speak English…But then again, dolphins can sing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aufHz-i0#t=1m25s).

golentan
2014-04-28, 08:29 PM
By the way, I just remembered an article from a while back. Some government somewhere decided dolphins count as "non-human persons" or some such and banned dolphin shows and the like.

Oh, yes, I think I remember seeing that! I have mixed feelings, as in the absence of established common communication modes and tool use it's hard to judge, but on the other hand dolphins are clearly quite clever and I'd certainly rather err on the side of not oppressing a potentially sapient creature... Certainly I don't think they should be killed, but I feel I'd be jumping to conclusions to declare them to be or not be persons.

Maybe if scientists build a successful dolphin/english dictionary/translator that could be settled definitively.

noparlpf
2014-04-28, 08:30 PM
Unless we’re talking about green skinned space babes, I’m not interested.
Now on to dolphins, assuming as you say said dolphin is sentient and consenting, how would you really known? They can’t speak English…But then again, dolphins can sing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aufHz-i0#t=1m25s).

I read something last year about researches decoding a dolphin vocabulary of a couple hundred "words". I forget if they use supersonic sounds, but there's no reason we couldn't build a translator device. Voice-recognition software is pretty good these days.

Coidzor
2014-04-28, 08:32 PM
So, one of the objections seems to be that the given example was distinctly non-humanoid. Is that a dealbreaker for people? Would, for example, Captain Kirk be preferable to Captain Jack by virtue of pursuing humanoid aliens? If so, why is shape so relevant? I am genuinely curious and trying to understand.

General morphological distinctions do seem to be important, yes. As to why exactly, probably has something to do with mate selection subroutines and aesthetics. Possibly the mechanics behind being able to distinguish between a person and a thing.


Oh, yes, I think I remember seeing that! I have mixed feelings, as in the absence of established common communication modes and tool use it's hard to judge, but on the other hand dolphins are clearly quite clever and I'd certainly rather err on the side of not oppressing a potentially sapient creature... Certainly I don't think they should be killed, but I feel I'd be jumping to conclusions to declare them to be or not be persons.

Maybe if scientists build a successful dolphin/english dictionary/translator that could be settled definitively.

On the other hand, if they are persons, then they can commit crimes and be punished for them.

noparlpf
2014-04-28, 08:34 PM
Maybe this topic would be taken more seriously if framed in terms of an RPG. "So I'm playing an awakened dolphin in a seafaring campaign and a party member has been flirting back and forth with me." Something like that. Fits the forum better.

golentan
2014-04-28, 08:40 PM
Well, sure, but this isn't just about dolphins. It's a more general question about humans/nonhumans, including potentially non-humanoids.

Miriel
2014-04-28, 08:59 PM
I read something last year about researches decoding a dolphin vocabulary of a couple hundred "words". I forget if they use supersonic sounds, but there's no reason we couldn't build a translator device. Voice-recognition software is pretty good these days.
Well, humans have a few dozen thousand words and can create more by following standardized morphological rules, even at a rather young age (certainly before any sort of age of consent). I think it's unlikely that dolphin words communicate enough information to really be sure they consent to sex, or at least that their vocabulary is not relevant to their capacity to do so.

noparlpf
2014-04-28, 09:03 PM
Well, humans have a few dozen thousand words and can create more by following standardized morphological rules, even at a rather young age (certainly before any sort of age of consent). I think it's unlikely that dolphin words communicate enough information to really be sure they consent to sex, or at least that their vocabulary is not relevant to their capacity to do so.

Well, no, real dolphins are probably about as smart as small human children. My point was more that because real dolphins have a (very simple) language that we can interpret, we would be able to communicate with sapient dolphins even though they don't speak English.

Rakaydos
2014-04-28, 09:46 PM
If the Beast from Beauty and the Beast hadnt turned back to human, with he and Belle caring for each other so deeply... would it have been wrong for their relationship to become physical?

Coidzor
2014-04-28, 09:48 PM
Well, no, real dolphins are probably about as smart as small human children. My point was more that because real dolphins have a (very simple) language that we can interpret, we would be able to communicate with sapient dolphins even though they don't speak English.

Communication does seem like it would be pretty damn simple after you've already figured out how to Uplift something. :smalltongue:

golentan
2014-04-28, 10:11 PM
If the Beast from Beauty and the Beast hadnt turned back to human, with he and Belle caring for each other so deeply... would it have been wrong for their relationship to become physical?

I would assume not, but that's part of what I'm trying to figure out. Is it okay because he was originally human? Is it not okay because he isn't physically human? Would it be more or less okay depending on form and mind? Sticking to sapient consenting individuals only, where is the line in people's minds (if there is one) and why?

Starwulf
2014-04-28, 10:38 PM
Sooo, OP, you're basically asking, if there were Cat People, or Satyrs, or other such sentinent races with fully formed language capabilities and societies, would it be ok to have relationships(both emotional and physical) with them? I'd say...yeah. I mean, as long as they are fully reasoning, communicative creatures, and there is/was some way for us to understand one another(to avoid any possibility of rape), then I don't see why it wouldn't be perfectly fine. I mean, I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would cringe, or hate inter-species relationships, you only have to look around current society and you can see plenty of examples of humanity as a whole hating on people for whom they choose to be with, be it male, female, black or white, straight or gay. Hell, my own mother is strictly against whites and blacks being in relationships together, though of course she tries to explain it away with "I'm just looking out for any child they might have together, it would never be accepted".......But, sooner or later, people would get over it I'd imagine.

So, TL;DR: Yes, relationships with fully sentinent creatures capable of speech and intellectual reasoning, even if they aren't humanoid, are just fine.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-28, 10:47 PM
I think before we can have a interspecies romance, we need to have interspecies communication. Otherwise, how does one even know if both sides reciprocate the feelings, or at least each species equivalent. I don't think there is any of our fellow creature's on Earth I think we can really make that claim with yet, but a hypothetical alien I am fine with.

golentan
2014-04-28, 11:11 PM
I think before we can have a interspecies romance, we need to have interspecies communication. Otherwise, how does one even know if both sides reciprocate the feelings, or at least each species equivalent. I don't think there is any of our fellow creature's on Earth I think we can really make that claim with yet, but a hypothetical alien I am fine with.

It's an incredibly reductionist point of view, but the "talk and build a fire" rule is actually pretty solid for ruling out such situations. Take it as read in the scenario that this is some distance in the future, and that communication is assumed by "consenting" and "sapient."

Ravens_cry
2014-04-28, 11:30 PM
It's an incredibly reductionist point of view, but the "talk and build a fire" rule is actually pretty solid for ruling out such situations. Take it as read in the scenario that this is some distance in the future, and that communication is assumed by "consenting" and "sapient."
Communicating is even more important than fire I'd think.
I can imagine easily an aquatic intelligence with no access to fire, but an intelligence that didn't communicate is going to be basically impossible to build a romantic relationship with.

Jon_Dahl
2014-04-28, 11:32 PM
Now on to dolphins, assuming as you say said dolphin is sentient and consenting, how would you really known? They can’t speak English…But then again, dolphins can sing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aufHz-i0#t=1m25s).

I don't understand. My parents don't speak English either, but I'm certain I was conceived in a perfectly consensual way and they both knew it.

golentan
2014-04-28, 11:32 PM
Communicating is even more important than fire I'd think.
I can imagine easily an aquatic intelligence with no access to fire, but an intelligence that didn't communicate is going to be basically impossible to build a romantic relationship with.

Part of why I called the rule incredibly reductionist.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-28, 11:44 PM
Part of why I called the rule incredibly reductionist.
Have you read 'Little Fuzzy' by H. Beam Piper? The whole thing centers around a court case arguably about the sapience of the a native species. The 'talking and fire' rule is mentioned, as well as cases where sapience was assumed even though the rule did not hold. A human baby, for example.
It's a little dated, with slightly awkward dialogue at times, but still a good read.

golentan
2014-04-28, 11:49 PM
Have you read 'Little Fuzzy' by H. Beam Piper? The whole thing centers around a court case arguably about the sapience of the a native species. The 'talking and fire' rule is mentioned, as well as cases where sapience was assumed even though the rule did not hold. A human baby, for example.
It's a little dated, with slightly awkward dialogue at times, but still a good read.

I went as Little Fuzzy for halloween when I was in kindergarten. It is a little painful to read it these days and notice all the things I didn't as a kid, like the fact that the most advanced computer equivalent in the book is a tape recorder, but I still think it's a fun light book.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 12:24 AM
I went as Little Fuzzy for halloween when I was in kindergarten. It is a little painful to read it these days and notice all the things I didn't as a kid, like the fact that the most advanced computer equivalent in the book is a tape recorder, but I still think it's a fun light book.
Nice.:smallbiggrin:
As for the computers, the rise of computers for entertainment purposes was pretty unprecedented. Even examples like 'The Machine Stops' and 'A Logic named Joe' are much more centralized than what we actually got.

Heliomance
2014-04-29, 03:56 AM
But... It's still an animal physically?
It's sentience would help things slightly.. But it's still an animal.:smallconfused:
If the other half of the relationship was something like Aqua-man, or a merfolk, I could see it.. But a normal human and a (albeit sapient) dolphin is just off putting..

But... it's still a dude physically?
Its sentience would help things slightly... But it's still a dude :smallconfused:
If the other half of the relationship was actually a girl, I could see it... But a normal guy and a chick with a **** is just off putting..

I feel dirty for typing that.

SiuiS
2014-04-29, 04:10 AM
There's this thing about people who don't actually care about a conversation impulsively responding in a snarky way because they feel it makes them look cool.

That is called thread-crapping and is what the report post button in the lower left is for. :smallsmile:


I think before we can have a interspecies romance, we need to have interspecies communication. Otherwise, how does one even know if both sides reciprocate the feelings, or at least each species equivalent. I don't think there is any of our fellow creature's on Earth I think we can really make that claim with yet, but a hypothetical alien I am fine with.

I am continually astounded by this sort of thing. "Well, given that this intelligent, sentient and sapient species is advanced enough to understand romance, and this individual has the capacity for informed consent... I'm going to assume that's a weirdly specific fluke and the species is otherwise equivalent to a dumb housecat because it wasn't specifically called out as having the building blocks for language, metathought, romance, relationships, and consent even though it has language, metathought, romance, relationships, and consent."

It's like a fictional universe where gravity is demonstrably not in effect because if it was the entire universe would implode, but people insist that astrophysics as we know them should apply in every way despite this obvious deviation from astrophysics. It is illogical.


I don't understand. My parents don't speak English either, but I'm certain I was conceived in a perfectly consensual way and they both knew it.

Bravo!


But... it's still a dude physically?
Its sentience would help things slightly... But it's still a dude :smallconfused:
If the other half of the relationship was actually a girl, I could see it... But a normal guy and a chick with a **** is just off putting..

I feel dirty for typing that.

It's even funnier because we've had that happen. The whole "there is no scientific, medical, or discernable difference but there's still a difference!" Chestnut was something special, I do declare.

Jeff the Green
2014-04-29, 04:27 AM
There are some questions where wearing a condom is the wrong answer.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voting_machines.png

Anyway, I'm interested in judging people's reactions, preferably well before it's likely to become a legitimate social issue, rather than having my eye on a particular case. It seems likely to me that in the next couple hundred years at most, humans won't be the only intelligent beings on this planet (whether through AIs or Uplifted or Artificial animals or some combination), and I'm trying to gauge reactions to the idea of human/non-human couples before it's an issue that directly affects anyone I'm emotionally invested in.

Strangely (or maybe not) I have a bigger issue with Ai sex than interspecies sex. Basically Greta Christina (http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/01/16/would-you-have-sex-with-a-robot/) sums up my views. (Link is SFW-ish, the rest of the site is both explicitly atheist and somewhat less SFW.) The problem is that you're responsible for the programming of the robot to have sex with you, so there's a question of whether there's real consent and harm. With other sapient species this isn't a problem, so enthusiastic consent is more straightforward to achieve.

In my opinion, the only standard is enthusiastic consent. There may be other issues (zoonotic diseases are a real concern, so barrier contraception is essential), but they're definitely peripheral.

As for me personally... well, I pretty much draw the line at cat/fox girls. Anything more and I feel too much like I should be getting them a grocery bag to play in/throwing a ball/feeding them a mackerel. Adding in sex to that brings in the squick, and while squick is never a basis for moral judgement, it is for personal preference.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 04:33 AM
That is called thread-crapping and is what the report post button in the lower left is for. :smallsmile:



I am continually astounded by this sort of thing. "Well, given that this intelligent, sentient and sapient species is advanced enough to understand romance, and this individual has the capacity for informed consent... I'm going to assume that's a weirdly specific fluke and the species is otherwise equivalent to a dumb housecat because it wasn't specifically called out as having the building blocks for language, metathought, romance, relationships, and consent even though it has language, metathought, romance, relationships, and consent."

It's like a fictional universe where gravity is demonstrably not in effect because if it was the entire universe would implode, but people insist that astrophysics as we know them should apply in every way despite this obvious deviation from astrophysics. It is illogical.

If you can't communicate with it, then you can't receive or give romantic overtures. I don't see anything illogical about that. Sorry, I am tired, I really don't get your point. Apparently, communication is failing even between species.

Kalmageddon
2014-04-29, 05:42 AM
I am always impressed by how the first thing a human can think when contemplating the hypotesis of meeting another intelligent being is "can I have sex with it?". :smallamused:

Aside from that, do you really think a human, a horny human interested in "romance" with anothe species, would be able to discriminate between real consent and things that look like consent? You know, if you really look for something in a behaviour, chances are you will find it even if it's not there, expecially when it's something ambiguous and that you really want.
I'm sure there are a lot of rapists that think they were given consent because of how a woman dressed, acted, talked. And I would never trust someone that feels the urge to "romance other species" to be able to do any better, simply because if anything a different form of intelligence would give even more ambiguous signals.

Zorg
2014-04-29, 05:56 AM
I am always impressed by how the first thing a human can think when contemplating the hypotesis of meeting another intelligent being is "can I have sex with it?".

https://31.media.tumblr.com/448be08603edb225187d79f431204925/tumblr_n22zjexiQB1ttej8uo1_250.gif https://24.media.tumblr.com/6617bec57034aba23c64e11f7e694e6e/tumblr_n22zjexiQB1ttej8uo3_r1_250.gif

https://31.media.tumblr.com/7752497e3b76ab6e9f5a2523ad544a0f/tumblr_n22zjexiQB1ttej8uo5_r1_250.gif https://31.media.tumblr.com/b3e96f8103b4606b5400b50c8b468bcc/tumblr_n22zjexiQB1ttej8uo2_r1_250.gif


:smalltongue:

Asta Kask
2014-04-29, 06:17 AM
I am always impressed by how the first thing a human can think when contemplating the hypotesis of meeting another intelligent being is "can I have sex with it?". :smallamused:

When we finally meet other intelligent beings we'll send in our specially trained corps of asexual diplomats.

SiuiS
2014-04-29, 06:29 AM
If you can't communicate with it, then you can't receive or give romantic overtures. I don't see anything illogical about that. Sorry, I am tired, I really don't get your point. Apparently, communication is failing even between species.

It is illogical to approach 'can give rational, communicated consent' with 'theyccant communicate'. It is a Socratic query based on assumptions. Those assumptions are taken as true. One assumption is consent. Another is sapience. Any response that questions consent or sapience is wasting time – it's already been established as possible, why are you asking if the given is a given?


I am always impressed by how the first thing a human can think when contemplating the hypotesis of meeting another intelligent being is "can I have sex with it?". :smallamused:

Nice unsubstantiated assumptions.



I'm sure there are a lot of rapists that think they were given consent because of how a woman dressed, acted, talked. And I would never trust someone that feels the urge to "romance other species" to be able to do any better, simply because if anything a different form of intelligence would give even more ambiguous signals.

Please don't compare a forum goer to abrapist because of a hypothetical question for a fiction story.

Asta Kask
2014-04-29, 06:41 AM
It is illogical to approach 'can give rational, communicated consent' with 'theyccant communicate'. It is a Socratic query based on assumptions. Those assumptions are taken as true. One assumption is consent. Another is sapience. Any response that questions consent or sapience is wasting time – it's already been established as possible, why are you asking if the given is a given?

Yep. The burden of proof is on those who declare there's consent. The only way this can be confusing is if neither can communicate but both consent.

Aedilred
2014-04-29, 09:22 AM
It is illogical to approach 'can give rational, communicated consent' with 'theyccant communicate'. It is a Socratic query based on assumptions. Those assumptions are taken as true. One assumption is consent. Another is sapience. Any response that questions consent or sapience is wasting time – it's already been established as possible, why are you asking if the given is a given?
I'm not really sure I get this. Just because consent is possible doesn't mean it's a given in any particular instance. And without the ability to communicate you'll never reliably be able to tell. Kalmageddon's point is actually quite apposite. Opinions on what constitutes consent are so widely variable even within our own species - even if some of those opinions are undoubtedly wrong - that without the ability to communicate I find it hard to see how consent in other species could even be interpreted.

The important question becomes not "can it consent?" but "how can you know whether it's consenting?".

erikun
2014-04-29, 09:55 AM
I do think that communication is important part of such a relationship, primarily because there need to be some method of communicating to be a relationship. I don't see how two individuals could provide consent without some method of communication between them. (Although givent that most people are talking about sexual consent, that could presumably be done without a shared language.)

I also point out that a romantic relationship does not necessary require or imply a sexual relationship. For various reasons, including asexual partners. I see little reason why two individuals could not simply become lifetime partners, as long as they both are intelligent, sapient, and able to communicate free with each other.

Another point is that while a lot of people love the fantasy idea of human-sized, human-compatable other species, statistically that isn't a reasonable assumption to make. When a human's romantic partner is the size of a mouse or size of a rhino, a sexual relationship is going to be anything other than "standard". And this is even more extreme when the romantic partner might be a computer AI or something similar. A computer is not even going to have a sexual desire, or at least not one that would be meaningful to a human.

Mina Kobold
2014-04-29, 10:18 AM
I'm not really sure I get this. Just because consent is possible doesn't mean it's a given in any particular instance. And without the ability to communicate you'll never reliably be able to tell. Kalmageddon's point is actually quite apposite. Opinions on what constitutes consent are so widely variable even within our own species - even if some of those opinions are undoubtedly wrong - that without the ability to communicate I find it hard to see how consent in other species could even be interpreted.

The important question becomes not "can it consent?" but "how can you know whether it's consenting?".

I'd presume that you can know because the question is whether it would be acceptable if all involved are sapient and consenting. Since this is a hypothetical situation, it assumes that there are no unspecified factors that nullify either of those traits. We don't know if there is communication, but we also don't know if one of the people involved are drunk or if deceit is involved. There is no reason to assume that the hypothetical is about a scenario where one or more of the involved cannot communicate consent, especially since "consenting" usually means the act of giving consent. I am honestly baffled that people are saying "without the ability to communicate..." as if the original question had included it. Golentan never said that anyone in the scenario were mute, unable to write or otherwise unable to communicate. Why is it necessary that a dolphin or other non-humanoid sapient person can't communicate with a homo sapiens? Plus, how is consent even possible if the parties cannot communicate? I'm a bit confused.


Personally, I'd say that since consent and sapience are both present, I don't see a difference between this scenario and any that specifically involves homo sapiens. Getting to a position where consent was clear might be difficult if sapient beings other than humans suddenly appeared in 2014, but that is mostly a social and cultural issue, not one intrinsic to interspecies romance. Whether one looks like an elf, a lizard, a human, a cat or like an inanimate object doesn't affect one's ability to consent if one is sapient.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 10:20 AM
It might not even have a romantic desire.

Asta Kask
2014-04-29, 10:26 AM
If it doesn't have long-term relationships it likely won't. See the preying mantis, for example.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 11:13 AM
If it doesn't have long-term relationships it likely won't. See the preying mantis, for example.
Bit of an aside, but they have found that preying mantises usually don't do that, only when stressed, like when being observed over closely by a bunch of scientists. Still, even less drastic differences could preclude romantic relationships. Many animals have a "Love 'em and leave 'em" approach to sexuality, not really forming long term romantic bonds as far as we can tell.

Miriel
2014-04-29, 11:42 AM
I'm not really sure I get this. Just because consent is possible doesn't mean it's a given in any particular instance. And without the ability to communicate you'll never reliably be able to tell. Kalmageddon's point is actually quite apposite. Opinions on what constitutes consent are so widely variable even within our own species - even if some of those opinions are undoubtedly wrong - that without the ability to communicate I find it hard to see how consent in other species could even be interpreted.

The important question becomes not "can it consent?" but "how can you know whether it's consenting?".
Well, consent is possible between human beings and it's not necessarily given in any particular instance (e.g. rape). What's your point?

As has been mentioned, the hypothesis assumes that, under any given definition, consent exists, has been given and has been communicated, be it by a scientific innovation, body language, magic or divine intervention.

SiuiS
2014-04-29, 11:47 AM
I'm not really sure I get this. Just because consent is possible doesn't mean it's a given in any particular instance.


It might not even have a romantic desire.

This is all obfuscation. We are specifically talking about consent and communication possible. Bringing up some hypothetical other, similar but different situation is just a distraction.



Oh! How do people here feel about interspecies relationships between sentient consenting individuals? I got flack recently for shipping (not erotic fanfiction or anything, just "I think they'd make a cute couple) an uplifted dolphin with a human (there was a lot of talk about bestiality) and I noticed that a lot of the people criticizing were also using rhetoric similar to anti gay stuff...

I find this happens All The Time. The response to a specific is always to tear down a barely related hypothetical, as if the existence of an extenuating circumstance or a technical edge case somehow invalidates the entirety.

Why do people read "consenting relationship" and add in "not really, this is actually a nonromantic nonconsenting mindscrew" to make themselves feel better?

E: that said, my consternation and this topic are separate things, though related. I'm just generally blah on the topic. I've seen it play out too many times.

warty goblin
2014-04-29, 11:50 AM
Bit of an aside, but they have found that preying mantises usually don't do that, only when stressed, like when being observed over closely by a bunch of scientists. Still, even less drastic differences could preclude romantic relationships. Many animals have a "Love 'em and leave 'em" approach to sexuality, not really forming long term romantic bonds as far as we can tell.

I realize a bunch of scientists watching a creature get its freak on is doubtless stressful, but the fact that their stress reaction is to chew off their partner's head speaks loads about mantis psychology. I mean would you want a significant other who might literally bite off your head if the mailman saw you getting frisky?

Rather more to the point, a whole hell of a lot of species appear to use sex as an entirely reproductive activity, as opposed to a form of social recreation. The notion that an intelligent version of, say, a deer, would have a notion like what we consider romance, or tie that to sex is pretty out there. Going cross-species there just seems really, really disappointing for all parties. I mean I'm really terrible at wrestling foes into submission with my antlers, and I can't say the deer approach to sex would really float my boat either. Nor have I met many human women who get really hot and bothered by a guy who's courtship involves antler-jousting and amassing the largest harem possible, and I can't see going exclusive being a particularly attractive option for your average stag.

Which is really the (other) biggest problem with these uplifted animal arguments*. They presume that somehow intelligence comes with a lot of other human - and pretty modern human - notions of ethics, sexuality, etc. Ducks reproduce primarily by sexual assault. Male lions kill the offspring of defeated rivals as a handy way to further their own reproduction. Komodo dragons view their own young as a convenient dietary supplement. Angler fish don't so much mate as cease existing as independent beings. Vast swaths of the animal kingdom abandon their eggs and go on their merry way. Many varieties of octopus guard their eggs so manically they die after the brood hatches. Wasp larvae literally eat their unwilling hosts alive.

Now the usual next strand of this particular argument is that surely once we make the various beasties all intelligent, they'll naturally see the advantage of our ways and become all cuddly and friendly. Why? Modern human ethics have their roots in cultural circumstance and the particular biological quirks of homo sapiens. The biological imperatives of a lion are extremely different, and any leonine culture that arises would be vastly different from our own. We tend to consider children as universally worth protecting but a male lion clearly does not. Komodo dragons of either sex do not. It seems very strange to assume that an intelligent komodo dragon would suddenly start regarding children as something besides a snack simply because it suddenly can talk and use an iPhone.


*The first being of course that this is pretending science fiction represents a probable future to an even greater degree than most transhumanist 'predictions'

AtomicKitKat
2014-04-29, 12:00 PM
Weird. Just last month I was postulating almost this exact question in the Transhumanists in the Playground thread(which seems to have died). Granted, mine was more directed towards one having a relationship with their uplifted pets, which are technically more like one's (adopted) children. Still. I think it's fine, as long as both parties are aware and agree that A.) Sex is an option. B.) There is more to it like spending time together.

Spiryt
2014-04-29, 12:07 PM
and amassing the largest harem possible, and I can't see going exclusive being a particularly attractive option for your average stag.
. ]

Well, to be fair, plenty of powerful individuals did have harems, or something similar enough, and so there's tendency among humans for such behaviour, if given a chance.

But it's indeed not 'given' and constant indeed.


We tend to consider children as universally worth protecting but a male lion clearly does not.

Likewise, we have plenty of examples of humans killing off other people offspring in something that, deep down, was probably simple biological war as well.

Plus humans still have obviously more 'elaborate' versions of this as turning children into slaves, janissaries, etc.

Rakaydos
2014-04-29, 12:12 PM
Another thing to keep in mind with uplifts is that they would be a minority. They would grow up in either human labs or human society, and would be culturally indoctrinated to human mores. One could imagine two uplifted octopi awkwardly going on a date, because they were raised (by humans) to expect that sort of thing before mating, not because of any biological imperitive.

And that sort of cultural override on bioligy means that the uplifts will expect to find humanlike things attractive, like someone on the middle of the kinsy scale (the "choose to be straight/gay" people, as opposed to the ends who are "were born straight/gay") may be pressured by religion to suppress interest in the same sex.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 12:23 PM
Not to mention that humans creating sentient creatures will be influencing them by adding the things we consider important to intelligence.
I am working on a science fiction story that is about uplifted creatures and robotic AI having to deal with life after humans go extinct, being programmed and created to have humanity at the centre of their existence.
It also includes some interspecies romance between a communal intelligence (like a hive mind, but voluntary and temporary as suits the members needs and interests.) that look like a bunch of terrestrial tube worms and the feline Uplift ambassador.

Spiryt
2014-04-29, 12:30 PM
Not to mention that humans creating sentient creatures will be influencing them by adding the things we consider important to intelligence.
I am working on a science fiction story that is about uplifted creatures and robotic AI having to deal with life after humans go extinct, being programmed and created to have humanity at the centre of their existence.
It also includes some interspecies romance between a communal intelligence (like a hive mind, but voluntary and temporary as suits the members needs and interests.) that look like a bunch of terrestrial tube worms and the feline Uplift ambassador.

Hmmm, Lem had written quite a few things about this, though perhaps not exactly.

Voyage XXI in "The Star Diaries" tells about robots doing quite 'humane' things - while 'humans' (or rather almost identical aliens) had long lost their humanity due to technical progress.

warty goblin
2014-04-29, 12:32 PM
Weird. Just last month I was postulating almost this exact question in the Transhumanists in the Playground thread(which seems to have died). Granted, mine was more directed towards one having a relationship with their uplifted pets, which are technically more like one's (adopted) children. Still. I think it's fine, as long as both parties are aware and agree that A.) Sex is an option. B.) There is more to it like spending time together.
For some sorts of common pets though, spending time together isn't really a thing. Cats for instance don't really bond with their mates. Why would an intelligent cat be any different because it can do arithmetic?


Well, to be fair, plenty of powerful individuals did have harems, or something similar enough, and so there's tendency among humans for such behaviour, if given a chance.

But it's indeed not 'given' and constant indeed.

True, although as you note it's the the dominant sexual construct - many cultures have laws against polygamy for instance, and sexual infidelity is frequently seen as a sufficient reason to dissolve a marriage. For intelligent deer, neither of these make any sense.


Likewise, we have plenty of examples of humans killing off other people offspring in something that, deep down, was probably simple biological war as well.

Plus humans still have obviously more 'elaborate' versions of this as turning children into slaves, janissaries, etc.
None of which your modern human tends to regard as a good thing. So when the intelligent komodo dragon down the street eats your toddler because it's slow and squishy, I'm guessing most people would object that such an act is wrong, just as we tend to object to humans beating human children to death. However from the dragon's point of view there's almost certainly no issue. What possible justification do we have to make the dragon liable for human laws and ethics? Both are rooted in entirely human biology and culture, none of which would work for a creature like the komodo dragon, any more than human young smearing themselves with excrement and hiding in trees would make sense for us.

Thinking of animals as human is, in every circumstance I have ever encountered, staggeringly incorrect. They aren't, they don't think like people, they don't behave like people, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise because their differences don't fit with our notions of ethics. I see no reason why making them intelligent would change that.

Aedilred
2014-04-29, 12:40 PM
So I read the last few responses backwards, like a chump, and inevitably my brain parsed the following:


I realize a bunch of scientists watching a creature get its freak on is doubtless stressful, but the fact that their stress reaction is to chew off their partner's head speaks loads about mantis psychology. I mean would you want a significant other who might literally bite off your head if the mailman saw you getting frisky?


I find this happens All The Time.

Moving on.


Well, consent is possible between human beings and it's not necessarily given in any particular instance (e.g. rape). What's your point?

Well, that pretty much was the point. More specifically, that in a non-negligible proportion of such cases, communication of consent or otherwise has been misconstrued, whether due to erroneous assumptions on the part of the perpetrator, inability to interpret body language correctly, etc. And that happens within the same species; when dealing with others, these problems are likely to be magnified.


This is all obfuscation. We are specifically talking about consent and communication possible. Bringing up some hypothetical other, similar but different situation is just a distraction.
Well, it wasn't me that brought it up, guv; I was just responding to that line of the discussion. But I'm here now, I guess.

I think it's difficult to make a cogent argument, that romance (or sex, whatever) between two sapient, (informed-)consenting, free-willed individuals of whatever persuasion is wrong, that amounts to more than "ew, yuck". Whether "ew, yuck" is in itself a convincing argument is probably going to vary from person to person (and the point that the same broadly applies to various intraspecies partnerships is a good one).

The interesting point of discussion (and really, the part that's actually worthy of detailed discussion, given the above) as far as I'm concerned, is how - and whether - you can determine the sapience, consent or free will of the individuals in question, a point on which the question of communication is critical. And that's really fundamental to the ethics of the whole debate. We can circumvent it by giving a blanket exemption and saying "yeah, all that is taken as read" and then we're right back to "ew, yuck".

Coidzor
2014-04-29, 12:45 PM
I feel dirty for typing that.

As you probably should. :smallsigh:


Strangely (or maybe not) I have a bigger issue with Ai sex than interspecies sex. Basically Greta Christina (http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/01/16/would-you-have-sex-with-a-robot/) sums up my views. (Link is SFW-ish, the rest of the site is both explicitly atheist and somewhat less SFW.) The problem is that you're responsible for the programming of the robot to have sex with you, so there's a question of whether there's real consent and harm. With other sapient species this isn't a problem, so enthusiastic consent is more straightforward to achieve.

Depends on how uplifting takes place. If they're basically organic AIs overlaid on an animal's instincts with tweaks to eliminate the more socially disruptive/violent behaviors, then you'd run into similar ethical concerns.


Why do people read "consenting relationship" and add in "not really, this is actually a nonromantic nonconsenting mindscrew" to make themselves feel better?

One possibility is that we *know* on some level that zoophiles and those who want to **** AI would try their damndest to sneak trogans into the base code. And consent gets mucky if one has been made to have a preference(or worse) for sex with one's human masterscounterparts.


Thinking of animals as human is, in every circumstance I have ever encountered, staggeringly incorrect. They aren't, they don't think like people, they don't behave like people, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise because their differences don't fit with our notions of ethics. I see no reason why making them intelligent would change that.

Because uplifting an animal without giving it a moral center compatible with living amongst humans would be the height of irresponsibility, mostly. There are some changes that would have to be obligatory, otherwise they'd never make it out of the lab or would cease to be created after the last one was mowed down(ok, around when we finally admitted that there was a problem with them going around committing murder, which could vary depending upon their profitability).

TheThan
2014-04-29, 01:29 PM
I don't understand. My parents don't speak English either, but I'm certain I was conceived in a perfectly consensual way and they both knew it.

Come one, everyone speaks English.

Seriously though, I think everyone is missing the point of my post. IT WAS A JOKE, hence the reference to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
Read a book people.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 01:43 PM
Hmmm, Lem had written quite a few things about this, though perhaps not exactly.

Voyage XXI in "The Star Diaries" tells about robots doing quite 'humane' things - while 'humans' (or rather almost identical aliens) had long lost their humanity due to technical progress.
Interesting. Freefall, the webcomic, also includes AI (both biological and computer) that feel more humane than some of the humans in the story, though it's not because of technological change.

Miriel
2014-04-29, 01:45 PM
Well, that pretty much was the point. More specifically, that in a non-negligible proportion of such cases, communication of consent or otherwise has been misconstrued, whether due to erroneous assumptions on the part of the perpetrator, inability to interpret body language correctly, etc. And that happens within the same species; when dealing with others, these problems are likely to be magnified.

[other quote]

Well, it wasn't me that brought it up, guv; I was just responding to that line of the discussion. But I'm here now, I guess.

I think it's difficult to make a cogent argument, that romance (or sex, whatever) between two sapient, (informed-)consenting, free-willed individuals of whatever persuasion is wrong, that amounts to more than "ew, yuck". Whether "ew, yuck" is in itself a convincing argument is probably going to vary from person to person (and the point that the same broadly applies to various intraspecies partnerships is a good one).

The interesting point of discussion (and really, the part that's actually worthy of detailed discussion, given the above) as far as I'm concerned, is how - and whether - you can determine the sapience, consent or free will of the individuals in question, a point on which the question of communication is critical. And that's really fundamental to the ethics of the whole debate. We can circumvent it by giving a blanket exemption and saying "yeah, all that is taken as read" and then we're right back to "ew, yuck".
I think that pointing out that there is really no issue other than "ew, yuck" in the case was the primary intent of this. The rape thing is not a matter of species -- the point of the discussion --, but a matter of communication. It arises with people who speak different languages, for example. There is a difference of degree as the difficulties in communication increase, but the problem remains the same no matter the species.

AFAIK, fully sapient non-humains are not a thing that exists, so the "how" of communication is a hypothesis issue within a hypothetical situation. And really, finding a means to establish a reliable means of communication with a sapient dolphin or whatever is easy when compared to finding/creating sapient dolphins.

If we have to question whether the hypothesis itself makes any sense, well... the way we automatically create animal analogies of human behaviour (cf. warty goblin) is a more central issue than communication. This is why I've mostly kept out of the main discussion and only argued about subsidiary points.

warty goblin
2014-04-29, 01:49 PM
Because uplifting an animal without giving it a moral center compatible with living amongst humans would be the height of irresponsibility, mostly. There are some changes that would have to be obligatory, otherwise they'd never make it out of the lab or would cease to be created after the last one was mowed down(ok, around when we finally admitted that there was a problem with them going around committing murder, which could vary depending upon their profitability).

In which case you don't have an intelligent animal. You have a human stuck in an animal body. Boy I bet that would be a grand life; just imagine trying to work the elevator buttons. Or knowing that you only exist in your present form because some rich SOB decided they wanted to bang a tiger, and unless you behave just like the hairless monkeys demand they'll kill you for it.

Frankly if such a being decided to start ripping the throats out of uplift scientists/rich tiger-banging SOBs, I'd be entirely on its side. The tragedy being that the poor thing would be enslaved at such a fundamental level it would be incapable of doing so. I do not believe in one sapient getting to dictate the form of another's thoughts. Any meaningful concept of freedom must include at least that much. The alternative is slavery in the most invasive form imaginable.

erikun
2014-04-29, 01:55 PM
None of which your modern human tends to regard as a good thing. So when the intelligent komodo dragon down the street eats your toddler because it's slow and squishy, I'm guessing most people would object that such an act is wrong, just as we tend to object to humans beating human children to death. However from the dragon's point of view there's almost certainly no issue. What possible justification do we have to make the dragon liable for human laws and ethics? Both are rooted in entirely human biology and culture, none of which would work for a creature like the komodo dragon, any more than human young smearing themselves with excrement and hiding in trees would make sense for us.

Thinking of animals as human is, in every circumstance I have ever encountered, staggeringly incorrect. They aren't, they don't think like people, they don't behave like people, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise because their differences don't fit with our notions of ethics. I see no reason why making them intelligent would change that.
I could probably argue that there needs to be some respect to others for there to be a society of such things living together. Otherwise, such a society would fall apart (and reasonably, never exist in the first place). I mean, if they attack one other on site they won't be engaging in conversation and trade, and if they kill children then there will never be any knowledge passed along.

Mina Kobold
2014-04-29, 02:03 PM
True, although as you note it's the the dominant sexual construct - many cultures have laws against polygamy for instance, and sexual infidelity is frequently seen as a sufficient reason to dissolve a marriage. For intelligent deer, neither of these make any sense.

Are you saying that deer are automatically polyamorous or that humans are automatically not? Because you're kind of comparing cultural elements (laws and taboos against poly relationships. Infidelity being a reason for divorce due to it per definition meaning that you lied and broke promises) to what I presume is the idea that deer are by nature poly.

But that confusion aside: So what? It's still the hypothetical that all involved parties are consenting, not that they're forced. If a sapient deer is not interested in interspecies romance or romance at all, then it's irrelevant. We're talking situations were someone is interested in them. That may be rarer in deer, even million-to-one chances, but we're talking "if that happens, then what?", not "Will it be common?".


None of which your modern human tends to regard as a good thing. So when the intelligent komodo dragon down the street eats your toddler because it's slow and squishy, I'm guessing most people would object that such an act is wrong, just as we tend to object to humans beating human children to death. However from the dragon's point of view there's almost certainly no issue. What possible justification do we have to make the dragon liable for human laws and ethics? Both are rooted in entirely human biology and culture, none of which would work for a creature like the komodo dragon, any more than human young smearing themselves with excrement and hiding in trees would make sense for us.

I've met a person at my university who considered it funny that he'd seen boys be raped in a war-zone and considered it good that people in the area were killed. Strangely, despite seeing no issue with that, he'd still be prosecuted if he killed children from that region in the street here. Society is complex and indeed heavily influenced by and influencing culture, but it's not based purely in human biology and culture and not homogeneous.
If they were, any human who considered murdering kids OK would have the same immunity from law as the komodo dragon, unless you have to have an entire culture to agree first. In which case we need to figure out what a sapient komodo dragon culture might be, because we honestly don't know. It might be that they would recognise that humans are sapient too and thus not a good idea to eat, it might not.

But if komodo dragons decided that it was OK to eat human children, then they're kind of making humans liable to komodo dragon laws and ethics anyway, as it is komodo dragon ethics that would dictate that being squishy means you can be killed, so I don't think this approach makes much sense in the first place.

My objection would be because someone is harming someone else without that someone else being in agreement or it being necessary. With all people being equally worthy of life and agency, neither a sapient komodo dragon nor a human can kill the other on the street without thus overruling the other's agency and life. My rights end where yours begin, whether I'm on two legs or four.

Smearing yourself in excrement and hiding in a tree, on the other hand, only affects yourself, so I don't see the similarity much.


Thinking of animals as human is, in every circumstance I have ever encountered, staggeringly incorrect. They aren't, they don't think like people, they don't behave like people, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise because their differences don't fit with our notions of ethics. I see no reason why making them intelligent would change that.

Humans have a vast array of differing opinions and ethics, not a monolith of one kind of behaviour or thought pattern. A sapient raven may indeed be much less likely to have much in common in their way of assessing ethics or in behaviour from most humans, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible that some sapient ravens and some humans may be compatible enough to have relationships. I'm probably wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that all sapient members of a species are all alike or at least all within a bubble that can't overlap with another one. Considering the fact that humans and several other species already are capable of cooperation (mostly as pets and owners, but still), that may not necessarily be the case.

I do agree that it may mean that it's a lot more difficult, but not impossible.

warty goblin
2014-04-29, 02:11 PM
I could probably argue that there needs to be some respect to others for there to be a society of such things living together. Otherwise, such a society would fall apart (and reasonably, never exist in the first place). I mean, if they attack one other on site they won't be engaging in conversation and trade, and if they kill children then there will never be any knowledge passed along.

Those are all human values. Many alpha predators are essentially solitary upon reaching adulthood, as some large herbivores - particularly the males. Why would a sapient tiger give a rat's ass about trade or conversation, anymore than you or I care about who last peed on this or that tree? Humans are social animals because we evolved that way; but many creatures are not social. The requirements for a functioning social order are not universal, even across social animals, and are not relevant to non-social creatures. Again, pretending that the imperatives of human animals are anything more than a single datum in the spectrum of animal imperatives is deeply incorrect.

As I argued above, creating a sapient tiger that's social in the human understanding of the term isn't creating a sapient tiger. It's creating a human that has a tiger's body. And there's a whole lot that's horribly wrong with that under usual human ethics.

Miriel
2014-04-29, 02:19 PM
In which case you don't have an intelligent animal. You have a human stuck in an animal body. Boy I bet that would be a grand life; just imagine trying to work the elevator buttons. Or knowing that you only exist in your present form because some rich SOB decided they wanted to bang a tiger, and unless you behave just like the hairless monkeys demand they'll kill you for it.

Frankly if such a being decided to start ripping the throats out of uplift scientists/rich tiger-banging SOBs, I'd be entirely on its side. The tragedy being that the poor thing would be enslaved at such a fundamental level it would be incapable of doing so. I do not believe in one sapient getting to dictate the form of another's thoughts. Any meaningful concept of freedom must include at least that much. The alternative is slavery in the most invasive form imaginable.
Hum, as much as I dislike making bizarre analogy between humans and animals, beware of essentialism.
1) There is no such thing as a "human" essence to be put in animal bodies.
2) A tiger with human-like consciousness is not a tiger twisted into an untigerly abomination, just a is a tiger with human-like consciousness. An individual tiger is an individual tiger, not merely the actualisation in an individual of universal tigerhood or whatever.
3) Just because a living being is a tiger doesn't mean it should act like all other tigers. Don't put tigers in monolithic, all-alike boxes, especially not entirely hypothetical tigers.

Oh, and nobody said that the point of "uplifting" your hypothetical tiger would be sexual relations in themselves. Nobody said anything about creating sex slaves or killing them if they don't comply. You're creating a strawman.

Spiryt
2014-04-29, 02:31 PM
None of which your modern human tends to regard as a good thing. So when the intelligent komodo dragon down the street eats your toddler because it's slow and squishy, I'm guessing most people would object that such an act is wrong, just as we tend to object to humans beating human children to death. However from the dragon's point of view there's almost certainly no issue. What possible justification do we have to make the dragon liable for human laws and ethics? Both are rooted in entirely human biology and culture, none of which would work for a creature like the komodo dragon, any more than human young smearing themselves with excrement and hiding in trees would make sense for us.

Thinking of animals as human is, in every circumstance I have ever encountered, staggeringly incorrect. They aren't, they don't think like people, they don't behave like people, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise because their differences don't fit with our notions of ethics. I see no reason why making them intelligent would change that.

Well, yeah, but 'modern human good things' are indeed modern, somehow limited geographically, and are not constant or guaranteed to last.

I generally agree, but people, are all in all prone to developing immense amount of different standards, often completely oppositional to each other.

One can probably still find some culture that doesn't treat killing 'other' children as something out-of ordinary.




As I argued above, creating a sapient tiger that's social in the human understanding of the term isn't creating a sapient tiger. It's creating a human that has a tiger's body. And there's a whole lot that's horribly wrong with that under usual human ethics.

Well, there are tigers who are somehow 'social' being kept by people etc.

The question is indeed how much of a tigers they actually are anymore, indeed, if they would even survive on their own etc.

Same like with most domesticated animals.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 02:36 PM
Well, I would say that there is a human nature and trying to recreate human style intelligence too closely in another animal would effectively create a human mind 'trapped' in an animal's body. Hopefully, once we get to that point we'll know enough to avoid it.

Mina Kobold
2014-04-29, 02:43 PM
Those are all human values. Many alpha predators are essentially solitary upon reaching adulthood, as some large herbivores - particularly the males. Why would a sapient tiger give a rat's ass about trade or conversation, anymore than you or I care about who last peed on this or that tree? Humans are social animals because we evolved that way; but many creatures are not social. The requirements for a functioning social order are not universal, even across social animals, and are not relevant to non-social creatures. Again, pretending that the imperatives of human animals are anything more than a single datum in the spectrum of animal imperatives is deeply incorrect.

They would still have to accept that social animals are a thing in their world that can't be ignored. They may not want to converse or trade, but they might want space to be solitary and to not be hunted by hundreds of humans. That requires communicating this to humans and making compromises, which sapience would allow. A bit akin to how tigers may be solitary on a daily basis, but still has to meet with one another if they wish to mate and still has to tolerate cubs if they wish to care for their young. Tigers may not get human relationships and social behaviour, but they can still communicate and comprehend that humans generally work like X, while they themselves work like Y, which means that agreement Z needs to be made between the two in order to not have humans come kill them. Might mean that there won't be a consensus or shared opinions between tigers, but the individual should be able to understand that angering a big group of humans is more dangerous than just agreeing to eat something non-sapient instead.

It may well be that it would turn out that sapient tigers generally wouldn't want anything social or romantic, but that doesn't mean all of them will be like that (just as not all humans are social). If the rare one is interested in a romantic relationship, or is just interested in interspecies sex, then I think that could well be a consensual relationship. It may never happen, but we're talking a hypothetical where it does happen, even if it could only work by magic. :smallsmile:

PS: On the notion of creating a human mind trapped in the shape of another animal; that may be a bad thing, if it causes distress. If a person identifies just fine with their non-human body and thinks as a human only on non-subconscious-body-related-not-sure-what-it's-called level (e.g. a parrot speaking English and having friendships like a human, but still considering flight their natural mode of movement), then I don't think they're necessarily trapped. I may like being humanoid, but if someone else liked being canid, then I don't see a problem. :3

Rakaydos
2014-04-29, 03:15 PM
PS: On the notion of creating a human mind trapped in the shape of another animal; that may be a bad thing, if it causes distress. If a person identifies just fine with their non-human body and thinks as a human only on non-subconscious-body-related-not-sure-what-it's-called level (e.g. a parrot speaking English and having friendships like a human, but still considering flight their natural mode of movement), then I don't think they're necessarily trapped. I may like being humanoid, but if someone else liked being canid, then I don't see a problem. :3

This sort of thing already exists, actually, at least from the human side. Therians (http://otherkin.wikia.com/wiki/Therians) are a subset of the furry community that believe their "soul" is not human, and that they belong in a different body- kind of the species equivilant of a pre-op Transgenderd person.

golentan
2014-04-29, 08:02 PM
I would also point out that pair bonding or romance aren't necessarily associated with sexual drive or compatibility. I have a couple of Asexual friends in long term romantic relationships with other people, or who would like to someday be. And I know plenty of animals who get affectionate or otherwise bond with others of their own or different species despite neutering.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 09:06 PM
I would also point out that pair bonding or romance aren't necessarily associated with sexual drive or compatibility. I have a couple of Asexual friends in long term romantic relationships with other people, or who would like to someday be. And I know plenty of animals who get affectionate or otherwise bond with others of their own or different species despite neutering.
How do we know the latter are romantic bonds and not, say, friendships?

russdm
2014-04-29, 09:22 PM
I think there is bit of a confusion here, and I will try to add some proper clarity here.

It is possible to have a relationship with your pet cat because in a lot of ways your cat is like a person. That said, you can't have a romance with your pet cat because your cat lacks the comprehension of what that means. Yes, you could have an intimate encounter but romance implies more than just sex which would make no sense to the cat at all.

If you uplift a cat, it would view the romance the same as it would before because it and its species has not gone through the changes that prompted humans to be how we are. So, your uplifted pet cat would see any relationship with you as just being a one time deal or something extremely casual. This is not dealing with the ability of anatomy to function together properly, as that is a completely separate issue to worry about. Its one thing to want a romance with your cat, its quite another to being able to complete that romance in an intimate sense.

The biggest issue is species cultural attitudes. It would be completely acceptable to your enlightened/uplifted cat to engage in amorous activities with other partners besides yourself and they wouldn't see anything wrong with it because it really wouldn't be wrong according to cat culture or behavior. You personally would consider it very wrong, because unless you choose to allow for multiple partners, the human cultural norm is to be monogamous in a dating/romantic relationship. When not doing so, it is usually called cheating and frowned upon. From a Cat point of view, this makes absolutely no sense.

There is also attraction, in that your pet cat would not instantly become attracted to you in a sexual fashion if you enlighten/uplift it. That is human arrogance; the belief that everything would be interested in jumping a human as soon as one were spotted. Your pet cat would need to have attraction to humans added in to its nature, because its inclination would be to go for other cats and not you even after being uplifted because it is not a standard used. You would also have to modify humans, because going after a cat is also not a standard either. There are exceptions to the rule yes, but it is not a widespread exception whatsoever.

Then add in the other cultural elements. Yes, you could perhaps be in a romance with a lion, but that lion may get rid of your offspring in the belief that it would get you in the mood. Unless you changed the lion's standard mode of thinking, it would still act like a lion and so make choices based on what it knows. You need to modify its knowledge to actually have any kind of romance.

You can have relationships with probably every species available that is capable of it, but I don't believe for a second that all human/X romances are even possible without significant changes to either humans or X. For species that are more like Asari or Krogan or Turian, its more possible because its more like a white/black woman and a black/white male. The two partners are different more because of cosmetics more so than fully different cultural ideals. A white male can have a romance with a black woman because they both share human cultural ideals and vice verse, but other species won't have shared cultural ideals so it will be nearly impossible for them to have any kind of romance.

Love can go only so far without hitting barriers of some kind. How those barriers are overcome will show how possible any interspecies romances actually are.

golentan
2014-04-29, 10:21 PM
*snip*

I'd argue that probably most social organisms are capable of some form of romance (look at everything from birds to whales to apes) , and that some degree of socialization is required for sapience (the whole communication minimum). I think you're also making assumptions about the nature of romance (assuming sexuality and monogamy and what have you, none of which is a given in my experience with human romance). And any sort of sapience is likely to involve significant modeling on the human mind as the only current example when people go to design AIs or alter other species. That said, we're not talking about situations where people don't want to be romantically involved, we're talking about situations where they do.


How do we know the latter are romantic bonds and not, say, friendships?

*Shrug* We don't, but it seems indicative to me. Romance for me is a feeling of intense longing to be close to another person, to talk to them, and to demonstrate my affection both socially and physically. It's friendship with a greater degree of need. I enjoy being with friends in the same way, but I feel compelled to seek out people I'm romantically interested in.

Jaycemonde
2014-04-29, 11:01 PM
That said, we're not talking about situations where people don't want to be romantically involved, we're talking about situations where they do.

It's been said several times now and everybody's still keeping their heads in the sand and trying to be difficult, or just disregarding it completely and bringing other aspects in that may or may not turn out to be relevant in any way (like sexual compatibility). It's probably for the best that you took this out of the other thread for derailment reasons, but I don't think that the rest of this forum is the best place to ask in any case.

Ravens_cry
2014-04-29, 11:41 PM
*Shrug* We don't, but it seems indicative to me. Romance for me is a feeling of intense longing to be close to another person, to talk to them, and to demonstrate my affection both socially and physically. It's friendship with a greater degree of need. I enjoy being with friends in the same way, but I feel compelled to seek out people I'm romantically interested in.

Well, a lot of what you describe is pretty internal, and that's not something we have much luck with knowing much about animals yet. Measuring hormone levels in animals in interspecies relationships and comparing them to animals of the same species we know are in romantic relationships could help. Otherwise, we could simply be reading the signs wrong. A culture with little physical contact in public between platonic friends may construe the affection between friends of a culture with a much higher comfort level for such things as sign of romantic connection, even if in the friend's culture it's just a sign of friendship, and that's just the confusion human cultural differences make. Bonobo chimpanzees are an interesting example where sex is used in ways far more diverse than romance and reproduction.

Coidzor
2014-04-30, 12:53 AM
In which case you don't have an intelligent animal. You have a human stuck in an animal body. Boy I bet that would be a grand life; just imagine trying to work the elevator buttons. Or knowing that you only exist in your present form because some rich SOB decided they wanted to bang a tiger, and unless you behave just like the hairless monkeys demand they'll kill you for it.

Frankly if such a being decided to start ripping the throats out of uplift scientists/rich tiger-banging SOBs, I'd be entirely on its side. The tragedy being that the poor thing would be enslaved at such a fundamental level it would be incapable of doing so. I do not believe in one sapient getting to dictate the form of another's thoughts. Any meaningful concept of freedom must include at least that much. The alternative is slavery in the most invasive form imaginable.

Quite possibly, I believe Eclipse Phase presents one potential for Uplifts that basically has them lumped in with Transhumanity in general, though as a distinct minority group even then. It may also be a matter of degrees.

And beta-testing is always messy.

OTOH: What is Freedom? Being unable to recognize that eating a child is a suicidal action or resist the impulse when it comes up? Being able to resist the urge to nom on random human children if the urge manages to survive the Uplift process? Something completely different?


Oh, and nobody said that the point of "uplifting" your hypothetical tiger would be sexual relations in themselves. Nobody said anything about creating sex slaves or killing them if they don't comply. You're creating a strawman.

Well, I did mention that uplifts which were inherently inimical to humans and smart enough to be dangerous but not smart enough to not be suicidal would likely not make it out of beta-testing in order to exist in the general populace, which rather implies that some sort of grisly fate would await failures to create uplifted animals that won't just immediately try to eat humans or human larva on sight. I view that as less compliance and more working out the kinks when one is basically playing god anyway.

And I also mentioned that one thing to be suspicious of and watched out for would be people who were working on such things purely so that they could create sophonts fitting their fetishes/paraphilia. Definitely not the *point* of making such entities, but something to be aware of as one of the factors to control for when making them if one makes them.


PS: On the notion of creating a human mind trapped in the shape of another animal; that may be a bad thing, if it causes distress. If a person identifies just fine with their non-human body and thinks as a human only on non-subconscious-body-related-not-sure-what-it's-called level (e.g. a parrot speaking English and having friendships like a human, but still considering flight their natural mode of movement), then I don't think they're necessarily trapped. I may like being humanoid, but if someone else liked being canid, then I don't see a problem. :3

That feels like it's missing the point. We're not discussing putting people who *want* to be in animal bodies instead of human ones into animal bodies. It's more the potential for negative consequences and side effects of intentionally making a person with gross physical disabilities and whose mind rejects their morphology.

OTOH, the mind is the plaything of the brainmeats/body, so there's some potential for that getting mitigated simply by the mechanics of uplifting.

golentan
2014-04-30, 03:02 AM
It's been said several times now and everybody's still keeping their heads in the sand and trying to be difficult, or just disregarding it completely and bringing other aspects in that may or may not turn out to be relevant in any way (like sexual compatibility). It's probably for the best that you took this out of the other thread for derailment reasons, but I don't think that the rest of this forum is the best place to ask in any case.

Actually, I'd call this a useful learning experience. I'm trying to understand people's general thoughts on the subject, and an echo chamber isn't likely to get me closer to that understanding.

Zrak
2014-04-30, 03:40 PM
I was going to say a lot of things about how I think understandings of romance and consent and what those entail are often contentious enough as it is that cross-cultural understandings between entirely different species who might possess fundamentally different understandings of the world and the nature selfhood would almost necessarily become extremely complex.

Then somebody linked and XKCD comic and now all I want to do is make jokes about how sex between species which cannot reproduce is objectively superior than sex between members of the same species because the latter led directly to the birth of Randall Munroe.