Aspen: That sounds like a reason someone might want to move away from where they're living, but I don't think it's a good idea to try to make a list of those reasons - any reason someone might want to move away is a good enough one, and I don't want someone to see that their reason isn't on the list and think we won't help them.
Lizzie: Yeah, it seems to me like we're going to want to be able to give people from other worlds someplace to go, with this. There are a few options already - Raezenoth has invited a few people to move to their world, and we have places for some people here - and I'm going to start working on another one, too.
Mozee: Okay, I'll put that on the list as something that not everyone does.
Lizzie it would probably help if you told us more about these people so we would know better whether there is a place for them in another world. Though maybe that is outside the scope of this thread and you should post in the intelligent species thread about it instead.
This is a very good idea. I especially like that you thought to mention that it's possible for a person who has never been treated like a person not to be able to do the things that people do. We have a lot of people like that in this world and it would be a very hard problem to fix even if we could stop them from being killed tomorrow because it's very hard for them to learn to be people properly after being treated like that. We have tried sometimes but have had limited success even with intensive individual attention.
How someone starts existing does not determine their personhood. Neither does their particular neuroarchitecture or their current or preferred substrate (you covered this to a degree with the thing about minds (the former) and the one about bodies (the latter), but people with bio-brains being considered more person-y than those with cyberbrains or running in infomorphs is also a problem in Eclipse.)
As for rights... I have something around here somewhere...
All sapient beings have certain rights from the first point they start to display emergent patterns onward, and should not be denied them for any reason.
Do you have any advice for detecting 'the first point they start to display emergent patterns' that could be transferred to a world with less computing power? Stories of Clanks which were sophisticated enough to clearly be people are well-known, but it is so rare in practice that without reliable tests, we might be overlooking simpler ones that ought to be given rights.
Values will not always align sufficiently for all "rights" to be sacrosanct for everyone all the time. Any "right" that, even in theory, can produce an outright contradiction, is merely an affectation of fairness, not an ethical primitive.
I am intimately familiar with the suffering that results from solving social problems with poorly aimed behavioral injunctions. Don't do that. It never works. It only trades loud horrors for quiet ones. I'm not, personally, worried that this effort is at risk of perpetuating the specific quiet horror that is my life's focus, but the principle is the same.
Yes. Yes, that definition is strange and makes no sense. Where I live, if someone doesn't exist it certainly means they're not a person. What in the world - in your world, it must be - are you talking about? Also, who are you?