I'll confess, here and now, that sapient, talking animals, specially canines and such, are my greatest dream, but sadly talking animals are nice things. Humans can't have nice things. They break them. Do bad stuff with them and to them. Things that most of us wouldn't even concieve.
I wish we could have them, I really do, but until mankind uses and treats nice things responsibly and all nice-like, the answer is no.
Argent wrote:(though having my cat able to get his own food instead of going "MOW MOW MOW MOW FEED ME MOW MOW MOW" at 3 AM...)
That was hilarious, but I thought you had a boa constrictor, not a cat! You know, you are one of those very few individuals that, the more they talk, the less I trust them.
Seth wrote:I.feel like sentient animals would quickly be given more rights as this hypothetical unfolded. Whether they would be dependents like the house pets model or considered equal to humans I can't say. But they certainly wouldn't be a "slave species." I think either way they would be just as capable of forming bonds with people. Possibly even more so given their ability to.communicate
They WOULD CERTAINLY be a slave race (At least during the first few centuries since their creation.), even if not explicitly said so, we would just make up some euphemism like "Fluffy people under supervision of human people." and make them believe they have more rights than they actually have.
Sapient individuals on Earth nowadays hardly ever do something if it's not practical or proffitable. Be it a better lifestyle, satisfying a need, money, or making our consciences a little easier, we don't like doing stuff if it doesn't make anyone, be it ourselves and/or someone else, feel better.
That being said, no one would spend FORTUNES on creating anthropomorphic animals just so they can live in harmony with us.
No. It would be more like the Billion Dollar Man: "We gave you life, now you gotta work for us, buddy!"
Even if it's just serving as pets and companions for humans, they would still have to probide that service.
Otherwise.... they would be disposed of.
And believe, activist can't save you when someone in power wants you gone for good.
Argent wrote:In the HP! universe, reading between the lines (and explicitly) pets have pretty much no rights, they can be abused and killed with few if any legal repercussions, and wild animals are fair game in very sense of the word. I would hope that sapient non-humans would be treated better, without the 'nature red in tooth and claw' meta-history, but would they be grateful for being created, particularly in the early days?[/size][/quote
Yes, they would be grateful for their existence, until they find out we are abusing them for being our creations.
Then, SOME of them, the ones that would wish for first-class citizenry and a place in politics, will not be THAT grateful, but will still defend their lives, and let's face it, they may get violent about it.
Sleet wrote:While I'm being the technicality stickler, animals are already sentient. What the HP! animals are and real animals aren't, however, is sapient.
Yeah, I used to use the word "Sentient" myself, until Wikipedia revealed to me that was the wrong word.
The Star Wars franchise needs to be informed of this.
20th century fox? Given that this is the year 2020, that fox must be dead by now. Sadface! : (
I'm telling you, hyenas ARE canines too!