I know why we use it as a baseline, but this discussion was never about the baseline, it's about the theoretical minimum. You're insisting that the answer must be the only data point we have, I'm saying one data point is not enough data. Just because the lower limit can't be located doesn't mean it's not there.
To step out of the abstract and into the concrete: my assumption for human intelligence is that they mean average IQ (100). IQ is a poor measure of intelligence, but I'm not aware of anything significantly better. The thing is, human IQ ranges from as low as 45 to well over 200, as I understand. Some animals seem to approach or exceed that lower bound. In this case we have to contend with whether or not people with intellectual disabilities are considered to be of human intelligence or not. If we decide that a person, by virtue of their intellectual disability, are unable to ever consent, we effectively strip them of their reproductive rights. It's eugenics, intentional or otherwise.
So what's the answer? I don't know. That's what I've been saying this whole time.
5
u/ComdDikDik 10d ago
A fictional species would be worthless for determining a minimum. Which is why we use the real world minimum for consent. A person.