Feb 26, 17 / Ari 01, 01 09:23 UTC

Constitutional safeguard should be given to wild life ,pet animals and space creatures.  

Asgardia is a country to save the life of wild animals ,pet animals and space creatures.These are the permanent sources of income for humanity.There should be a law to save their lives,except poisonous one.

Feb 26, 17 / Ari 01, 01 09:59 UTC

Oh dear. Where do I start?

Feb 26, 17 / Ari 01, 01 14:53 UTC

Respected rainbow sir, There is no plan to habitat in space immediately but constitution is to submit timely before our founding father,so ideas are to collect.thanks sir

Feb 26, 17 / Ari 01, 01 16:11 UTC

Comment deleted

  Updated  on Jun 15, 17 / Can 26, 01 16:16 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: "This user no longer wishes to be associated with a tin pot banana republic"

Feb 28, 17 / Ari 03, 01 19:57 UTC

As of right now, Asgardia lacks most basic types of infrastructure, has no legal framework, and no real organization. When we begin to have some form of basic structure then issues like this should be discussed.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 08:13 UTC

Just as a thought, how about something like this in the constitution:

Under the law of Asgardia, all life in all its forms is held to be valuable and beautiful and worthy of respect.

Since animals and conservation are very much an Earth issue at this time, it may help set the values and tone for future Asgardians to be good stewards of the natural world. It would set down some ground rules and ethics for the first time (if ever) alien life is encountered by human beings, because it is likely to be something like bacteria OR (if we are lucky) alien cockroaches.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 12:33 UTC

Just as a thought, how about something like this in the constitution:

Under the law of Asgardia, all life in all its forms is held to be valuable and beautiful and worthy of respect.

Since animals and conservation are very much an Earth issue at this time, it may help set the values and tone for future Asgardians to be good stewards of the natural world. It would set down some ground rules and ethics for the first time (if ever) alien life is encountered by human beings, because it is likely to be something like bacteria OR (if we are lucky) alien cockroaches.

Because this is a matter of 'law', the idea of respect would then need to be defined.

  1. Is it disrespectful to kill an animal for food? Many would argue yes.
  2. Is it disrespectful to keep animals in pens and not allow them to wander freely to places humans are allowed to go? I am sure some would argue this as disrespectful as well.

Bottom line is, animals (for the greater majority) are only interested in breeding and eating. Very few animals 'play' or engage in any form of recreation that might indicate their basic cognitive ability stretches beyond breeding and eating. Animals whose only consideration are breeding and eating are to be considered food or pet. Food has the right not to be mistreated, but little other rights. Pets have the added rights to be protected for the emotional benefit of their owner, not the pet itself.

Mar 21, 17 / Ari 24, 01 13:34 UTC

Very few animals 'play' or engage in any form of recreation that might indicate their basic cognitive ability stretches beyond breeding and eating.

That suggests to me you should spend more time observing more animals. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary across a wide range of species.

I'm personally not a big fan of the overall concept most have when the word "pet" is used, either - it offends me deeply - like in your context there is some concept of ownership. This is entirely wrong, the only thing you "own" would be a responsibilty and duty of care. The animal should want to be there, with you. Any other setup just isn't worth having. People would often question how my dog was trained so well, never attached to string ever, being left unattended outside whilst shopping, responding to handsignals for hunting or crossing the road etc - it was simple. It wanted to be where I was and it wanted to make me happy because it had the best life a dog could possibly have.

I'm not suggesting the local cattle farm be transformed into some politically correct wonderland centric to the rights of cows, nor do I think this requires specific mention in the constitution, life is life it shouldn't matter what type or where it is. All that should be required is just a measure of consideration for sentience. It might be of "another level", but it can still think. The emotional context is differing but it can still feel. Animals of most species commonly exhibit individual "personalities". I am personally of the opinion that if you would think purely by the fact of your "human" status you would be attributed some sort of "right" that is above that of, or additional to another you've just demonstrated that clearly you are not deserved. On the subject of rights, generally, far too many think they have some sort of right to life due to the random probability of their existence. Life is not a right, it is a privilige - and one that can and will be revoked at any second. There should be more appreciation and less expectation along with the recognition that this within itself isn't anything special.