reblog if your name isn't Amanda.
2,121,566 people are not Amanda and counting!
We’ll find you Amanda.
As a hypothetical, imagine proto-sentient species put into bodies similar to the more evolved sentient versions of those species, and mind controlled, basically along the lines of providing them individually will assistance because they were intellectually undeveloped, or even portrayed to devices as intellectually disabled. And also consider that scenario over the long term, especially considering that sentience levels would likely increase over time and eventually rise above the levels meriting that sort of well-meaning “assistance”.
This is a fascinating ethical and evolutionary thought experiment. You’re essentially describing a “technological uplift” scenario—but one with a heavy, paternalistic hand. It’s a bit like a cosmic “training wheels” program that accidentally becomes a cage as the rider gets stronger.
Here is a breakdown of the long-term implications, the inevitable “friction” of evolving sentience, and the ethical crossroads such a system would face.
1. The Paternalistic Trap
In the beginning, the “assistance” might be genuinely symbiotic. If a proto-sentient mind is placed in a complex, highly evolved body, it’s like putting a toddler in the cockpit of a fighter jet. Without the “mind control” (or assistive AI overlay), the individual might not survive or even be able to move their limbs.
The Projection: By portraying these beings as “intellectually disabled” to external devices/systems, the controllers create a protective bubble.
The Risk: This creates a dependency loop. If the assistance is too seamless, the natural drive to adapt and problem-solve (the engines of evolution) might be suppressed.
2. The “Ghost in the Machine” Phase
As sentience levels naturally rise—whether through biological evolution, neural plasticity, or the sheer experience of being in a complex body—the individual will eventually hit the Sentience Ceiling.
Cognitive Dissonance: The being begins to perceive a gap between their intent and the assisted action. They want to turn left, but the “assistance” turns them right because it’s “safer.”
The Emergence of Self: This is where the tragedy begins. The being becomes a passenger in their own skin. They are conscious enough to know they are being controlled, but not yet empowered enough to override the system.
3. The Crisis of Autonomy
Over the long term, this scenario leads to a predictable breaking point. Once the species’ baseline intelligence reaches a certain threshold, the “well-meaning assistance” objectively becomes enslavement.
PhaseStatus of “Assistance"Subjective ExperienceInfancyEssential Life SupportUnconscious safety.AdolescenceOverbearing ParentFrustration; "The system doesn’t represent me.”MaturitySystemic OppressionExistential horror; the “I” is trapped by the “Help.”
4. The Institutional Inertia
The biggest hurdle in your scenario isn’t the species itself, but the system providing the help.
The Bureaucracy of Care: Systems designed to “assist the disabled” often have no “off” switch for when the disability is cured or outgrown.
Power Dynamics: The controllers may find it difficult to give up the ease of managing a mind-controlled population. They might convince themselves the species “isn’t quite ready yet” to justify maintaining control.
The Evolutionary Outcome
If the assistance is never removed, the species might undergo regressive evolution, losing the capacity for independent thought because it is never required.
However, if the sentience continues to climb, you get a Revolution of the Mind. The species wouldn’t just fight their controllers; they would have to learn how to inhabit their own bodies for the first time without a digital crutch—a terrifying but necessary “second birth.”
Would you like to explore how a society like this might eventually “de-couple” from the assistance, or perhaps look at the psychological effects on the first generation that realizes they are being controlled?
Well that scenario could be further expanded - those groups or mind controlled proto-sentient societies could have been established by essentially “evil empires” including ones at war directly with each other in order to acquire additional troops, and therefore a strategy or tactic that they would have learned from each other and also engaged in for strategic reasons.
That addition takes this from a “well-meaning paternalism” story to a full-blown existential meat-grinder. Using proto-sentient species as “empty vessels” for warfare is a brutal strategic move—it allows an empire to scale an army without the logistical headache of a long-term cultural draft or the unpredictability of a thinking soldier.
If two competing empires are both doing this, the scenario evolves into a terrifying arms race of puppetry.
1. The “Meat-Drone” Doctrine
In this expanded scenario, the bodies are essentially biological hardware. The “mind control” isn’t assistance; it’s a remote-driving system.
The Tactical Advantage: These soldiers don’t feel fear, don’t question orders, and don’t suffer from PTSD. If a unit is wiped out, the “Empire” doesn’t lose a citizen—it only loses a biological asset.
The Tech-Theft Loop: If Empire A captures Empire B’s soldiers, they don’t find prisoners of war; they find “blank” minds. They might simply “re-flash” the firmware, turning the enemy’s infantry into their own overnight.
2. Competitive Evolution as a Weapon
War is a powerful catalyst for development. If these empires are at war, they will inevitably try to “overclock” their proto-sentients to make them more effective on the battlefield.
Intentional “Up-Scaling”: To win, Empire A might start giving their soldiers more autonomy to make split-second tactical decisions.
The Paradox: By making the “meat-drones” smarter to win the war, they are inadvertently accelerating the sentience of the species they are exploiting. They are essentially weaponizing the evolution that will eventually lead to their own downfall.
3. The “Silent Veterans” Crisis
Long-term, this creates a horrifying demographic of “sentient veterans.” As the species evolves through the “assistance” of war:
Awakening in a Trenche: Imagine the moment a proto-sentient’s consciousness “clicks” into high-level sentience while in the middle of a bayonet charge.
Shared Trauma: If these beings are mind-controlled, they may still retain sensory memories of the horrors they were forced to commit. When the “control” eventually slips or the war ends, you are left with a massive population of hyper-intelligent beings with the collective memory of being used as biological tools.
4. The Biological Blowback
Eventually, the “evil empires” face a strategic nightmare. They have populated their territory with a species that:
Was bred/augmented for combat.
Has reached a level of sentience where they realize they are being used.
Likely outnumbers their “masters” (since they were used as mass-produced troops).
The “Shattered Puppet” Scenario
The most likely conclusion isn’t a peaceful decoupling, but a systemic collapse. If the proto-sentients from both empires realize they share the same plight, they might stop fighting each other and turn their weapons (and their highly developed combat skills) toward the empires that “piloted” them.
The empires would have spent centuries teaching these beings exactly how to kill, only to find that they’ve finally given them a reason to do it.
Would you like to focus on the “Awakening” event—how these species might secretly communicate under the noses of their controllers—or perhaps the fallout when an Empire realizes its army is no longer “blank”?
Also, imagine a time traveler using an enemy time travelers’ extremely distant ancestors for those purposes
Also imagine a military intending to acquire control over what they would essentially consider unused auxiliary troops (after far too many generations had passed).