If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
On Defining 'Human'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
(Posted under 'Politics' since that's what passes for a morality forum these days.)
The following from OED 10th ed.:
The reason I bring this up is partly (though not totally) the recent discussions on these boards over 'human rights.' It was, in fact, a reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that got me thinking about this:
As many of you know, I would have problems with this statement even at the best of times. What caught my attention, though, was the repeated references to a 'human' or a 'person.' So, what is a human?
It occured to me that some of the most 'evil' men in history might actually have supported the UDHR. I imagined Hitler and an interlocutor speaking:
H.: "Ja. I agree entirely. In fact, I'm already enforcing it."
I.: "But what about the Jews?"
H.: "What about them?"
I.: "You're treating them horribly - violating their rights."
H.: "But, my friend, the Jews aren't humans."
It seems to me amazing (not to mention careless) that the UDHR could so conspicuously fail to define its central term, 'human.' The dictionary (as quoted above) comes to the rescue somewhat - but only so far.
There is evidence, for example, of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis, two 'distinct' species of primate. The legacy of this interbreeding can be seen (in diluted form) today: the 'pointy head' of some modern humans is a watered-down version of the Neanderthal skull-ridge, to which the strong jaw muscles attached.
Moreover, if an essential characteristic of a species is the ability of its members to breed among themselves, do we still classify castratees, those who have had hysterectomies, &c. as being 'human'? If such persons are to breed, methods such as IVF, surrogacy, and other 'artificial' techniques must be invoked. I suspect, though, that with sufficient bio-technological jiggery-pokery many apparently distinct species could be allowed to interbreed, possibly producing fertile chimeras.
The increasing possibility of 'bionic bits' (e.g. limbs, lungs, hearts) for the severely disabled also raises questions about when, if ever, a human patient stops being human and starts being machine. The reverse situation (human tissue grafts on to a machine) should not be too difficult to imagine, nor should the questions raised by it.
So, can we adequately define 'human'? If so, how? Is the taxonomic perspective enough, or must we look for other avenues, possibly more concerned with what a 'human' can think rather than what it looks like and can breed with?
:: Throws open the doors. ::
The following from OED 10th ed.:
human
adj. of, relating to, or characteristic of humankind. > of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines: human error. > showing the better qualities of humankind, such as sensitivity.
n. a human being.
humankind
n. human beings considered collectively.
human being
n. a man, woman or child of the specied Homo sapiens.
species
n. 1 Biology a group of living organisms consisting of similr individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding, considered as the basic unit of taxonomy and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.
The reason I bring this up is partly (though not totally) the recent discussions on these boards over 'human rights.' It was, in fact, a reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that got me thinking about this:
From the UDHR:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
As many of you know, I would have problems with this statement even at the best of times. What caught my attention, though, was the repeated references to a 'human' or a 'person.' So, what is a human?
It occured to me that some of the most 'evil' men in history might actually have supported the UDHR. I imagined Hitler and an interlocutor speaking:
H.: "Ja. I agree entirely. In fact, I'm already enforcing it."
I.: "But what about the Jews?"
H.: "What about them?"
I.: "You're treating them horribly - violating their rights."
H.: "But, my friend, the Jews aren't humans."
It seems to me amazing (not to mention careless) that the UDHR could so conspicuously fail to define its central term, 'human.' The dictionary (as quoted above) comes to the rescue somewhat - but only so far.
There is evidence, for example, of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis, two 'distinct' species of primate. The legacy of this interbreeding can be seen (in diluted form) today: the 'pointy head' of some modern humans is a watered-down version of the Neanderthal skull-ridge, to which the strong jaw muscles attached.
Moreover, if an essential characteristic of a species is the ability of its members to breed among themselves, do we still classify castratees, those who have had hysterectomies, &c. as being 'human'? If such persons are to breed, methods such as IVF, surrogacy, and other 'artificial' techniques must be invoked. I suspect, though, that with sufficient bio-technological jiggery-pokery many apparently distinct species could be allowed to interbreed, possibly producing fertile chimeras.
The increasing possibility of 'bionic bits' (e.g. limbs, lungs, hearts) for the severely disabled also raises questions about when, if ever, a human patient stops being human and starts being machine. The reverse situation (human tissue grafts on to a machine) should not be too difficult to imagine, nor should the questions raised by it.
So, can we adequately define 'human'? If so, how? Is the taxonomic perspective enough, or must we look for other avenues, possibly more concerned with what a 'human' can think rather than what it looks like and can breed with?
:: Throws open the doors. ::
0
Comments
*Walks through open doors*
Hmmm.....good point this, and one that's gonna be debated by future generations.
I can't help feel that with advances in nanotechnology, genetics and genetic manipulation the concept of "human" is gonna be rather stretched soon. Peter F. Hamilton recently wrote a rather good sci-fi trilogy where the human race had effectively split in two, those who fully accepted and embraced genetic manipulation of themselves and their environment to produce true inheritable biotechnology, and those who maintained GM was not natural and used "old-fashioned" technology.
If I was to be modified to, say, have enhanced night-vision I would then possess an ability that was not the product of nature or evolution. If that trait was then made to be inheritable by my children, would they be deemed human?? Most of their genetic structure would be human-basic, but a tiny percentage would be entirely artificial and man-made.
At the moment this sort of question is entirely irrelavent because the technology isn't available, but our genetic code is being unravelled and, like a new toy, will soon be played with. Will the results of such playing be classed human??