I want to live in a world of extreme body polymorphism. I want a world where someone can be a human, or furry, or elvan fae, four legged wolf, giant dragon, a collective of foxes, small box robot on wheels, hive of nanobots, copyright infringement, abstract geometry...
I want a world where any conceivable thing can be considered as a form, to have "personhood", and efforts are made to allow all those types of being to exist relatively in the same culture, to the best of our efforts.
@Taylor I see you just boosted this post of yours from last October. I wasn't here to see it then, though!
I want to live in a world like that, too, though it seems like it'll be difficult to live that long. It's a world I hope for, for the future, even if I don't get to see it.
Oddly, the world I've been building for fiction is like this, but I tend to focus on a subset that intentionally use relatively similar bodytypes, in a sort of collective culture.
@Taylor I saw you boosted this again and I thought I'd say the same thing, only to realize I already had. Am I too predictable?
It is odd to me still that I, a TF nut and transhumanist, made an extreme body polymorphism setting only to focus on people who effectively rebel against that status quo by choosing to be similar on purpose. XD
@relee A lot of "people" trend to being anthro because it's what we're used to, it would be the easiest for use of tools, or because we're all furries~. And that's fine too.
@Taylor Ahh shoot I used the p word instead of folks! Sorry.
I do find the anthropomorphic form to be very good and useful. There's plenty of room for improvement, but it's a great starting point.
The Adorabillians would probably count as people? They're not humans, though. I suppose it depends on everybody's definitions and what words mean what. So many things have hidden extra meanings too!
Apparently "Advertise" is a dirty word with sinister intent, for example. Just learned that one.
@relee We're not worried about "people" as a word too much~. The non-humans in one of our settings use "people" too, here we're just quoting it because of the ambiguity. Some might wanna still be considered people, some not.
Sapiency(??) is a complicated subject when we don't have other equally intelligent and communicative species. (That we know of.) Maybe we'd be better at getting along within humanity if we did...
@Taylor It is pretty awkward! So many different fokls over time have been like, "You're not really a PERSON so it's okay if I kill, abuse, or otherwise harm you!" and that's not great. Especially when personhood is such an essential determining factor for when it is okay to do or not do things, but it doesn't actually have any solid, official, testable meaning.
You can't prove you're a person, or not a person.
Are beings who choose to not be a person okay with me giving them person rights?