Quote Originally Posted by John Campbell View Post
Those vignettes were exactly what I was thinking of when I said that I wasn't sure basic Erflings were really sapient. Sentient, certainly. Sapient..... eh. Their ability to make rational decisions is limited to nonexistent, and they're certainly (explicit canon) not capable of choosing not to attack an enemy unless they've been so ordered by a leader unit.

(And "sapient" does actually mean "smart". Or "wise", at least.)
No, it doesn't. Sapient just means 'capable of rational decisions'. It doesn't mean those decisions are intelligent.

Sapient = "possessing or expressing great sagacity"

...

Sagacity = "the quality of being sagacious"

...

Sagacious = -of keen and farsighted penetration and judgment : discerning <sagacious judge of character>
-caused by or indicating acute discernment <sagacious purchase of stock>

...well that doesn't help! By these definitions, a hawk with good eyesight is sapient! ><

Sagacious = having or showing an ability to understand difficult ideas and situations and to make good decisions

... Okay.

We have seen through the archer that units are capable of making choices that the unit finds difficult to make (she stopped looking at the archons and decided not to sleep with another stabber based on what others would think of her) Just not MILITARY choices. Why? Because they are never called upon to make those choices - a unit is told to listen to someone else, at all times. They never learn, or think for themselves, and so they never do.

Learning is the brother of wisdom, after all - if a human is never taught anything, they will never learn anything, and will never be wise or make difficult choices. But does that make them non-sapient? I don't think so.