DescentBB

Ever wonder what the term "Human" means? I suspect most people would look at a person standing next to say, a dog, and point to the person as a human.
O.K. so what defines homo sapiens as human. Is it body shape? If so apes have the same general bi-lateral symmetry and 98% of their dna matches a "humans". Then too, people are born with extreme birth defects that do not look like a normal person, yet none here would not say they are "inhuman". So perhaps body shape is not a good criteria.

How about intelligence? People are defined by their intellect as being human. Or are they. At what point on the intelligence scale does human kick in. We consider anyone that looks to be a homo sapiens to be human even though their I.Q. may be abysmally low. Much debate has been presented on a fetus being a human life and many would consider a newly fertilised ovum to be a human being even though no brain, let alone intellect, are present. Even with the advent of cloning, some would consider a brainless cloned body to be human. Koko the gorilla has shown through hand signing, that she has a intellect to the point she can communicate abstract thoughts. Koko also has the same general shape as people and again she has 98% of our DNA. So is Koko human?

Perhaps you might argue that it is genetics that define humanity. If so we have this:

"In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6534243

So after reading all the above, tell me what you think is "Human"

This question becomes even more prevalent when considering that what if, one day, through the use genetical engineering, we made a creature that was a cross between gorilla and man? is that human? what if it had the same intelligence as man, but a gorrilla's body?

There will always be something lacking in a human-made creature. We can play "God", but we can't give animals--or chimeras--that essential "something" which keeps humans surviving, even in the harshest environments. We can give them human brains--but they will still lack the will, the hope, the incredible resourcefulness of a real human.

How can you be so sure Stryker?

humans are knowingly selfish, indignant, narrow-minded pricks... where as apes do it wholly by instinct.

All things in life have the drive and will to survive Stryker. Not just us. On an individual level most of us don't do it as well as most other lifeforms. It's the species as a whole that defines our role of survival.

In the end we might give birth to something that not only is structurally durable but also has the capacity to never be destroyed. Namely machines and AI. I'm hoping we keep that under control however.

I think what makes us most human is our vast imagination and creativity.

- humans assume about themselves that they have 'mental states' and can tell other humans about it.
-humans assume about themselves that they have 'free will' and can tell other humans about it.
- humans can lie...

Easy.
Take the creature in question remove any clothing and put a rope around it's neck, tie the rope to the leg of a table at any sidewalk cafe. Sit down at the table and proceed to wash the creatures genitals with a wet rag.

If no one complains you don't have a human.

Interesting...

That has some obvious flaws though.

OK, how about this, if they usually use utensils to eat with they are human.

Will Robinson wrote:OK, how about this, if they usually use utensils to eat with they are human.

So then these monkeys are human?:

"Cambridge researchers observed wild capuchin monkeys in the Brazilian forest using stones to help them forage for food on an almost daily basis.

The monkeys used tools for digging, for cracking seeds and hollow branches, digging for tubers (nutritious plant storage organs such as potatoes that often lie below the ground) and for probing tree holes or rock crevices."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4083517.stm

No, tools for aquiring food are not the same as tools developed simply to move the food into your mouth. A fork is more of a self indulgence thing. A non-human wouldn't waste the time putting an extra step into the process.

OK, I thought of the ultimate test. If they cook their meat before they eat it they are human and if that doesn't do it then...poetry.

So vegetarians that eschew cooking are not human?
Lord knows how many people do not read poetry let alone write it. So they are not human either?

haha, this is getting good

Soylent Green is people. You've got to stop them, somehow.

- Sirian

Pandora wrote:- humans assume about themselves that they have 'mental states' and can tell other humans about it.
-humans assume about themselves that they have 'free will' and can tell other humans about it.
- humans can lie...

*serious cops*

that's very insightful pandora.

Woody, every member of the species doesn't have to display the trait, just the majority.

OK, I've got it for sure!
If they have rules about sex then they are human.

here's my addition:
- It is human, if it believes that it is human. -

Vertigo 99 not Stryker wrote:we made a creature that was a cross between gorilla and man? is that human? what if it had the same intelligence as man, but a gorrilla's body?

there'd be someone out there that'd hit it too .

Stryker wrote:that essential "something" which keeps humans surviving, even in the harshest environments

by that definition those who fail, or commit suicide, are sub-human. even humans can lack what you described there.

Will Robinson wrote:OK, how about this, if they usually use utensils to eat with they are human.

i can think of many human cultures that don't use any eating utensils becides their hands. so i don't like where you're going on this . your suggested definition of what is and isn't "human" was likely accepted over several decades ago, but most of us consider those times "a bygone era" and would gladly leave them in our past. your definition is purely a consequence of differing cultures, not a question of "worth as a human" (although, it once was).

Will Robinson wrote:Woody, every member of the species doesn't have to display the trait, just the majority.

As to the poetry I don't think even a small minority of people read or write it.

Will Robinson wrote:OK, I've got it for sure!
If they have rules about sex then they are human.

Sorry Will, but social pack animals have well defined rules of sex. Social rules of dominance and hierarchy are present in wolf and baboon society that determine who has sex and who doesn't. Keep trying though.

Humanity may be based more on a combination of criteria than any one single characteristic.

I don't think they have "well defined" rules. They have dominant members who get the females and weaker members who aren't supposed to get them, a survival of the fittest thing.

I'm talking about rules like: prostitution is legal in Nevada except inside the Las Vegas city limits....you can have sex with your underage cousin in Mississippi but only if you promise to marry her....you can sell hardcore porn magazines on every corner but don't flash a nipple during the halftime show....

Ok...maybe I just found out how to prove you're american, not human

roid wrote:

Stryker wrote:we made a creature that was a cross between gorilla and man? is that human? what if it had the same intelligence as man, but a gorrilla's body?

there'd be someone out there that'd hit it too .

HEY! I said that, not stryker

HUMAN = Compassion/Love/Self-sacrifice/Creativity/ Hate/War/Murder/Rape

Will Robinson wrote:Ok...maybe I just found out how to prove you're american, not human

oh cool... GOD ain't lookin'. i'm gonna absolve myself of all personal responsibilty.

funny arse post will.

TheCops wrote:*serious cops*

that's very insightful pandora.

thanks...
especially because I had the distinct feeling of being in a 'TheCops mode' when I wrote it.

Arol wrote:HUMAN = Compassion/Love/Self-sacrifice/Creativity/ Hate/War/Murder/Rape

Animals do recognize suffering which leads me to believe they are capable of some type of compassion. They're also capable of love, but probably not what most of us would consider love since love is very different on an individual basis for each and every one of us. Some animals display creativity, all be abstract.

Animals do hate and animals most certainly war but not on the scale that we do. We're the all time champions in that arena which in the end might be the biggest thing that sets us apart from all other animals. Animals do rape, but they don't take offense to it like we do. If the male of a species decides to mate, that would be considered consensual in most cases. Same goes to the female species of a lot of creatures where that gender is the dominant.

The sad part is when you look at us, there isn't really much to seperate us from the animal kingdom we consider ourselves to be so much better then. One of our biggest defining characteristics is that we destroy our own habitats and the habitats of the other species of life that live on the planet with us. No other animal does that.

it's just coincidence of nature, darwinism, (or planetary design) that animals don't destroy their own environments.

they'd do it all right, but they woudln't last would they.

animals arn't smart enough to know that they are preserving their habitat, they just live, and their habitat lives. it's all a happy family.

but say if you had an overpopulation (for some fucked up reason) of some particular speicies. if that species is outof it's envoronment for some reason and it's unsuited to it's current environment, you can bet that those creatures will consume all the resourses.
it's like what if huge carnivorus dinosaurs were around today and there for some reason was a sharp DROP in their normal foods, they'd come and eat something else, and if that "something else" wasn't suited for that kindof onslaught, then that something esle would be WHIPED OUT. the animals don't care, they don't have a ★■◆●ing lcue what's going on.

it's just circumstantial that animal species don't whipe eachother out.

humans on the other hand, we don't have a clue what our NATURAL environment is . perhaps our natural environment is an everlasting mystical supply of food that needs no management, and we exist on this planet (without this manageless source) as a cosmic joke.
haha very funny

roid wrote:it's just circumstantial that animal species don't whipe eachother out.

humans on the other hand, we don't have a clue what our NATURAL environment is . perhaps our natural environment is an everlasting mystical supply of food that needs no management, and we exist on this planet (without this manageless source) as a cosmic joke.
haha very funny

Tyranny wrote:The sad part is when you look at us, there isn't really much to seperate us from the animal kingdom we consider ourselves to be so much better then. One of our biggest defining characteristics is that we destroy our own habitats and the habitats of the other species of life that live on the planet with us. No other animal does that.

very true. I think humans are like this because when they involved they didn't have access to technology that makes it possible to rape the land is it is possible to do today. So no limiting mechanisms have evolved that keep us in check.

btw, has anyone seen the one documentary about the killerwhales? Where they swim up to the beaches with one of the waves, grab a seal, and then go back into the water with the next wave? The funny thing was (1) that they didn't kill the seals that they had too many of, and (2) that they even brought them back to their beach. So THEY seem to have a mechanism that keeps unnecessary exploitation in check.

Anyways, when I saw ii, I immediately thought it was too good to be true. But it was on TV, so it had to be, right?

Animals destroy their environments as fast as we do when they can, they're just not as good at developing the manpower (ha ha) to do it as we are. In artifical circumstances it's easily apparent (ie too many cattle on a pasture = gg land). Drop a ferret in a chicken coop and try to claim he's managing his resources.

There are pyschopath animals as well. I've lost my source, but there were once two male lions in africa who lived together, hunted men whenever possible, and kept a bunch of people bones in their cave. All of this is totally contradictory to teh species normal behaviour, but it evidently made sense to them at the time. Eventually they were caught and put in a zoo.

What seperates us from animals? Power. No other animal can reorganize the entire world for their own benefit to the extent we can. This is quite seperate from what makes us human.

However, defining human is a self-defeating proposition. It involves defining a normal range, which leads to implying an ideal form, which a person can be more or less similar to than another person, which forces you to describe some people as more human than others.

The closest definition I can create is a person if human if they consider themselves such. This leaves the crazy-person exception in place though, and the mentally deficient who are not intelligent enough to understand outside the definition of human. It's imperfect, and I prefer not to define human at all.

...very true. I think humans are like this because when they involved they didn't have access to technology that makes it possible to rape the land is it is possible to do today. So no limiting mechanisms have evolved that keep us in check.

Agree! Which is one of the reasons we evolved religion and enact laws. To hold the beast at bay.

Humans produce music. And can use the abilty to reason to determine it's quality and usefulness.

Phoenix Red wrote:Animals destroy their environments as fast as we do when they can, they're just not as good at developing the manpower (ha ha) to do it as we are. In artifical circumstances it's easily apparent (ie too many cattle on a pasture = gg land). Drop a ferret in a chicken coop and try to claim he's managing his resources.

That isn't true at all. There has always been some sort of species of life that has kept other animals in check. Even we were part of that cycle and still are in many ways despite our technological advances. Always counter balances and perhaps that was our true purpose. To be the shepherds of the world's animals *shrug*. Even with cattle if they ran out of greener pastures they would move on to another food source allowing that previous one to re-populate. Animals also don't care for their own wounded to the extent we do which allows them to live longer lives then they normally would have.

Death is generally the ultimate balance to any species getting out of control but with our technology we end up cheating death if only for just a little while longer. Anyways, most other animals interact and exist WITH nature, and while we use resources that come from nature we don't exist with it like other animals do. We try to change our environment to make it more suitable for us instead of existing with the environment provided.

This comes back to the overpopulation issue when it comes right down to it. In many ways we have to change the environment to suit us because there are too damn many of us. This too could be the reason why we are a war like people with delusions of peace. Our violent nature tends to keep the population in check every so often. We are at the mercy of our own devices and those devices are wielded by ourselves.

Tyranny wrote:That isn't true at all. There has always been some sort of species of life that has kept other animals in check.

Exactly. If a species can overcome the life forms that have evolved to capitolize on them (whether through evolution a la humans or outside intervention a la the cattle pasture) they overstress and consequently destroy their environment.

Saying animals don't destroy their habitat is strictly false, although saying animals prevent eachother from destroying a mutual habitat is usually true.

Any species where a large part of it's population think potty humor is funny has to be human.

Dedman wrote:Any species where a large part of it's population think potty humor is funny has to be human.

As good; if not better, a definition as any of the above.

Interesting that Woodchip brought up Koko the signing gorrilla. She had a pet kitten with no tail that she named All Ball. The kitten was killed by a truck near the compound where Koko lives. I saw a bit of film of Koko's "keepers" telling her the bad news.
By many of the definitions of humanity given so far Koko's reactions would put her in our family. She signed that she was sad but that was not at all nessesary. She very clearly understood the news immediately and was very upset by the death of her pet. They also played some of the calls that Koko gave voice to later in the evening when she was alone. Sad in any language.
She has all the intelgence and emotion of a young child or perhaps a Down's syndrome adult.
Human is just a word we decide to apply wherever it suits us. What of the hydrocephalic fetus? Due to chomosome damage the fetus develops only the most rudementary of brain stems the crainium fills with fluid rather than brain matter. Lacking the ability to take food the fetus is doomed to a very short life once seperated from it's mothers placenta. I use the term fetus but some would call this a child and I understand that point of view though by our unemotional definitions it meets none of the criteria except parentage while Koko meets most of the criteria except parentage.
Strange world at times.

Human = To ask this question, "who am i?"