Where is the line for 'human' drawn?

[Kane]

Genetic engineering, cyborgs, and stuff like that. Staples of Science fiction, games, etc.

So the question is, where do you draw the line at 'human'?

A few examples, tried to vary sources:

The ability to 'sculpt' bodies, through medical practices or nannites change into different creatures, forms, or shapes, (including transferring your consciousness into a nannite swarm) is part of John Ringo's "Council Wars" series.

Space Marines, from WarHammer 40K (genetically created super-soldiers. With an emphasis on 'super')

In Lois McMaster Bujold's (sp?) Miles Vorkosigan series, (or rather, 'Cetaganda' which I read recently,) the elite ruling class of the Cetagandan empire implement a practice of genetic enhancement, tweaking, and 'evolving' of their offspring.

Anyway, I'm open to other examples, and I'm wondering what other peoples opinions on stuff like this is.

[kamikasei]

There is no line. If you want to make a binary distinction, it can only be done by convention, and will move over time and with new developments.

Besides which, I don't much care if something is human or not. Something can be non-human and still a person deserving of all the consideration that entails.

[Karaswanton]

I'd say if it originated as a human, then it's human.
A cyborg, even if 99.999999% synthetic--or heck, even 100%, is human if it started out as human.Clones qualify as human.

A robot, no matter how human-like, emotional, or intelligent are not human. They may be persons and deserving the rights thereof, but they are not humans because they don't understand what that means by past experience.

But yes, whether or not something is "human" is rather irrevelant, as personhood is the more important thing.

[Closet_Skeleton]

[inapropriate joke]Just below women and just above Glaswegians?[/inapropriate joke]

This topic basically leads you straight into discrimination.

In the end, humanity is defined by taxonomy/biology's definition of a species.

Which is completely screwed up.

[Jayngfet]

Biologically, I draw the line at having the same amount of organs in the right places and able to breed with humans. So an orc is human, a space marine sin't.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Biologically, I draw the line at having the same amount of organs in the right places and able to breed with humans. So an orc is human, a space marine sin't.

But if you mention Space Marines, you think of 40k Orcs which are asexual and can't mate with anything let alone humans.

There's probably a bigot somewhere who would extend his hand to anyone from outer space but wouldn't consider associating with the local minority group.

[Nerd-o-rama]

If it is self-aware, it's human enough to be considered equal. I figure that's the safest and fairest way to do things. Now, if the convention for "self-aware" changes, this definition has trouble...

[Emperor Tippy]

The scientific definition of a species is so long as mating can produce fertile offspring (at least thats it in a nutshell).

So if your only tweaking a person after birth and not messing with their eggs/sperm then the answer is there is no line.

If you are tweaking a person and making alterations that breed true then it gets real hazy.

It's already technically possible (although very risk) to genetically engineer a person who would be stronger, faster, have perfect memory, have unbreakable bones, and have an unbeatable immune system when compared to a regular human. Those are all traits already expressed in the human population, its the combination of all of them in one person that is unnatural. But they person would still be human.

Until you start messing with the brain or alter the body to such an extent that they are no longer fertile with base line humans then they count as human.

And it's quite amazing just what the body can do.

Things that humans have naturally expressed and the relevant genes have been isolated for:
-Perfect Memory
-Muscles 4 times as strong as normal
-No production of lactic acid
-Unbeatable Immune System (can beat AIDS, Ebola, Small Pox, etc.)

And those are just the biggies, better eyesight, better hearing, never get fat, perfect teeth, all of it is possible.

[Jayngfet]

But if you mention Space Marines, you think of 40k Orcs which are asexual and can't mate with anything let alone humans.

There's probably a bigot somewhere who would extend his hand to anyone from outer space but wouldn't consider associating with the local minority group.

No thats a spelling thing, in 40K you call them orks with a k, most fantasy uses orc, so I'm referring to Tolkien, Warcraft, and DND orcs, which all could feasably have fertile offspring with humans(and most have).

[Zeta Kai]

As a non-Human, this node of the Hive-Collective finds it appropriate to state that discussions regarding humanity are irrelevant, as your species is scheduled for eradication. This has been planned for some time. If you need to appeal this decision, please send a hyper-squirt via fatline to your nearest imperial outpost @ Proxima Centauri III. This is your final warning.:biggrin:

[kamikasei]

In the end, humanity is defined by taxonomy/biology's definition of a species.

This is the problem (well, one of the problems). The concept of a species breaks down when you have direct manipulation of genomes and the ability to transfer a person's consciousness between bodies.

The Major was human. Project 2501 wasn't. What was the combination? Who knows? It was a thing for which we don't have nomenclature. Past a certain point you're just asking which colours count as minor chords.

[Fri]

It's like that old ship story.

If we took a wooden plank from an old ship and change it with a new one, It's still the old ship.

If we took two planks from an old ship and change it with new planks, it's still the old ship.

But if we took enough parts and change it with new parts, suddenly it's not the old ship anymore.

Oh, and by the way, the newly formed Valkyrie Squadron already sent the appeal. Which consisted of just enough Antimatter Bomb.

[Emperor Tippy]

This is the problem (well, one of the problems). The concept of a species breaks down when you have direct manipulation of genomes and the ability to transfer a person's consciousness between bodies.

The Major was human. Project 2501 wasn't. What was the combination? Who knows? It was a thing for which we don't have nomenclature. Past a certain point you're just asking which colours count as minor chords.

Scientifically it really is simple. If it can breed and produce fertile offspring its a single species.

It might end up split along the lines of mutants in marvel (Homo S. superior and HS supreme). Throw in an HS amphibian and a few others. They will all be Homosapien though.

[kamikasei]

Scientifically it really is simple. If it can breed and produce fertile offspring its a single species.

But the concept of a "species" itself becomes pretty much useless when you have deep-level manipulation of genetics, the ability to transmigrate consciousness, to radically alter body and biochemistry in a living organism, to alter its gametes. When a single individual can belong to biologically distinct species at different points in its life, you've outgrown the old classifications.

[Emperor Tippy]

But the concept of a "species" itself becomes pretty much useless when you have deep-level manipulation of genetics, the ability to transmigrate consciousness, to radically alter body and biochemistry in a living organism, to alter its gametes. When a single individual can belong to biologically distinct species at different points in its life, you've outgrown the old classifications.

Not really. Species is a purely biological term. Consciousness and what makes a person would become much more relevant.

[kamikasei]

Not really. Species is a purely biological term. Consciousness and what makes a person would become much more relevant.

All right. Then consider that "human" is not only the name of a species. As I said, if you want to say that a single individual can be born human, become non-human, become human again, rinse and repeat, based solely on what sort of chromosomes it can spurt out, then you're discussing a sense of the word that is nowhere near the most interesting or relevant.

[Dervag]

It's like that old ship story.

If we took a wooden plank from an old ship and change it with a new one, It's still the old ship.

If we took two planks from an old ship and change it with new planks, it's still the old ship.

But if we took enough parts and change it with new parts, suddenly it's not the old ship anymore.Well, in the case of a ship I think it's a gradual process. If we replace 1% of the old ship, it's still entirely the old ship because the character of the old ship dominates the new parts.

It's when the new parts start to have an appreciable effect on the performance of the ship, moving its performance into zones that the old ship would never have entered (for better or for worse) that we start getting something that might be called a 'new ship'. Or, at least, an old ship that isn't what it used to be.
_________________________________

I think that anything you can assemble from the range of things that are part of human function. For example, if you took an embyro and implanted all the genes for awesomeness that Emperor Tippy identified, you'd still have a human. The human in question would be this invincible badass with incredible strength and durability and all, but they'd still be human in my book.

A computer is not a human. A human mind transferred into a computer, or a robot with performance outside the human envelope, is not a human. A Martian is not a human.

All these things are people; they just aren't human people. 'Human' and 'person' do not mean the same thing.

[Eldan]

Oh, come on. We can't even really define Cyborg. How should we define human like that?
Is a person with an artificial limb a cyborg? Pacemaker? Cochlea (Inner ear) implant? Electronical hand? We have all these.

Now, the biological species concept is really lacking. Biologists know that best of all. There's so many cases where it can't be applied correctly. Asexual species. Bees. Ligers (there are rare cases when those can be fertile). By definition, every new bacterium would be a new species.

[hamishspence]

If it can breed sometimes has blurry lines. Some creatures produce mostly infertile offspring with a very few fertile (brown bear/polar bear, lion/tiger, horse/donkey, duck/duck of different GENUS, never mind species)

Then there is the Herring gull/lesser black back gull example: Neither can interbreed, but in between are multiple subspecies that can, so, one species merges into another with no clear dividing line.

[Eldan]

Oh, yes. The gull example. And many more birds like it.

So, clearly, we can't work with that definition.

However, we were discussing humanity. Now, if we don't define it by species, it's really hard. I mean, no one here would argue that an amputee with an artificial leg is still human. However, when we move up to full body cyborgs, it gets difficult.

[Closet_Skeleton]

This is the problem (well, one of the problems). The concept of a species breaks down when you have direct manipulation of genomes and the ability to transfer a person's consciousness between bodies.



In the end, humanity is defined by taxonomy/biology's definition of a species.

Which is completely screwed up.

I guess this is what happens when I'm vague about things, people tell me what I already know.

There's are examples from the animal kingdom to destroy many of the clear cut rules of biology that they teach you at school.

[hamishspence]

Sci-fi has been known to do "brain in a jar" persons. It really depends what you consider most important.

Body can have bits replaced with brain being same. So body isn't necessarily the decider.

Genome is harder to define, as is brain. Brain plus in-brain computer with computer having a worryingly high level of control might be where the line begins to fuzz: the Infiltrator Terminators in S.M. Stirling's sequel series (rather better than Rise of the Machines IMO) are where the line starts to blur.

They are genetically engineered from humans, infertile with normal humans, reproduce by parthenogenesis (still requires a human as surrogate) and have an in-brain computer which is so integrated that creature might, arguable, be described as a new form of being.

however, in-brain computers might not be enough on its own, at low end, to make a person "Not-human" nor might mild genetic engineering.

One might draw a line with "clearly not-human" at one end and "clearly human" at other, but with a blurry area in middle you cannot define as one or the other.

[chiasaur11]

As a non-Human, this node of the Hive-Collective finds it appropriate to state that discussions regarding humanity are irrelevant, as your species is scheduled for eradication. This has been planned for some time. If you need to appeal this decision, please send a hyper-squirt via fatline to your nearest imperial outpost @ Proxima Centauri III. This is your final warning.:biggrin:

Dang.

Guess we need to restart that Spaceknight program, eh?

More on topic, human also would be a matter of how something thinks. I mean, if a cyborg with only minor modifications goes all "Eradicate... humanity..." on us, he's, arguably, less human that a brainwave pattern in a robot suit that still has those fantasies about Raquel Welch.

[Tengu_temp]

Are we talking human as a species, or human as a person and possessing the rights of one, here?

[13_CBS]

Are we talking human as a species, or human as a person and possessing the rights of one, here?

We might also be discussing where those two questions overlap..

[thubby]

human doesn't mean much in my book, but broadly. should be genetically compatible with a human (as in, could reproduce were proper anatomy present, even if it's not), should possess a single form that is roughly humanoid, and be sapient.

[Ashen Lilies]

Warning, Bean Saga spoilers below.

For me, a human is a human if their genetics are still within the normal variations that can possibly achieved through normal genetic mutation. For example.
Bean, being genetically altered to the point where his DNA is outside the realms of normal variation without some serious evolution going on, is not human. However, that doesn't change the fact he is still a person, and should be treated like one.

[Kami2awa]

No thats a spelling thing, in 40K you call them orks with a k, most fantasy uses orc, so I'm referring to Tolkien, Warcraft, and DND orcs, which all could feasably have fertile offspring with humans(and most have).

I don't think Tolkien's orcs ever do.

[Kami2awa]

Oh, come on. We can't even really define Cyborg. How should we define human like that?
Is a person with an artificial limb a cyborg? Pacemaker? Cochlea (Inner ear) implant? Electronical hand? We have all these.

Now, the biological species concept is really lacking. Biologists know that best of all. There's so many cases where it can't be applied correctly. Asexual species. Bees. Ligers (there are rare cases when those can be fertile). By definition, every new bacterium would be a new species.

I find it cool to think of in-ear earphones as bionic; after all, they interface directly with a sensory system (the eardrum) while bypassing the outer ear.

[turkishproverb]

I don't think Tolkien's orcs ever do.

Considering his orc's are related to his goblins, it could be argued they do.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Considering his orc's are related to his goblins, it could be argued they do.

No, in middle earth, goblin is just another language's word for orc.

There are half orcs in Tolkien but I think they're artificially created and were sort of prototype Uruk Hai.

Then again, the orcs of middle earth are just altered Elves and there are half-elves like Elrond around.

[turkishproverb]

No, in middle earth, goblin is just another language's word for orc.

There are half orcs in Tolkien but I think they're artificially created and were sort of prototype Uruk Hai.

Then again, the orcs of middle earth are just altered Elves and there are half-elves like Elrond around.

I meant that line "that man looks half a goblin"

[hamishspence]

He gets more coverage in Unfinished Tales, supposedly driven from his own village, where many claimed he had Orc blood, Saruman's spy in Bree, and, in one account (the one the Tale of Years appears to be based on) Witch king on way to Bree caught him, found out about Saruman's plans to betray Mordor and get Ring for himself. And co-opted him as spy for Mordor with threats.

Not a very lucky guy.

[Telonius]

Scientifically it really is simple. If it can breed and produce fertile offspring its a single species.

It might end up split along the lines of mutants in marvel (Homo S. superior and HS supreme). Throw in an HS amphibian and a few others. They will all be Homosapien though.

So if a robot were sufficiently advanced to be able to generate human sperm or egg from orange peelings (or whatever other organic matter is lying around), it would count as human...?

As for cyborgs, if interfacing with a sensory system counts, then anybody with glasses is a (primitive) cyborg. :smallcool:

[hamishspence]

Eeven with direct linking of computers to brains, most people with cochlear implants (me included) would dispute their being defined as not human. Cyborg, yes: not-human, no.

[valadil]

Biologically, I draw the line at having the same amount of organs in the right places and able to breed with humans.

So what of an organ donor? Does that kidney they gave someone make them less human? What about a eunuch? They're down one organ and unable to breed. Or do surgery induced organ miscounts not dehumanize someone?

Seriously though, people are being born minus an appendix. People are also born infertile. I'd hesitate to call either of them non fertile.

--

From a romantic standpoint I'd say that what makes us human is the ability to love and laugh.

[hamishspence]

Unable to breed, no. Unable to breed with anything other than Beings as altered as itself, thats a bit different. a "created species" with mostly human genetics might be a bit odder. after all, chimps share 98% of our DNA.

by same token, how much human DNA is needed to make something Human? Suppose a chimp had adjustments to its DNA so that it was fertile with Humans. Would it instantly become entitled to human legal protections. How important is intelligence in this?

Or, would a computer based on a human neural network, that thinks like a human, be considered one for moral or legal purposes?

[Closet_Skeleton]

From a romantic standpoint I'd say that what makes us human is the ability to love and laugh.

Most animals can do that (or equivilants) but then again, romantic viewpoints of humanity tend to be ways to make humans special compared to animals without any actual investigation into what animals are like.

[chiasaur11]

Most animals can do that (or equivilants) but then again, romantic viewpoints of humanity tend to be ways to make humans special compared to animals without any actual investigation into what animals are like.

I say it's jetpacks. Let's see a chimp try to make those!

[hamishspence]

Theory of mind is a possibility: And number of iterations that can be understood "I know, that he knows, ths she knows, that they want..." it said most humans can manage 5, have trouble at 6, and very young children and chimps struggle with 3.

Mind, Consiousness, etc: library books have much to say on the subject.

[Mx.Silver]

I say it's jetpacks. Let's see a chimp try to make those!

So all the humans who lived in ages before such technology was even remotely feasible all get demoted?:smalltongue:

[Jayngfet]

I say it's jetpacks. Let's see a chimp try to make those!

"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel..."

-Superman, being slightly less of a **** than normal.

[chiasaur11]

So all the humans who lived in ages before such technology was even remotely feasible all get demoted?:smalltongue:

Except Lincoln and Rosevelt.
I figure the secret hidden government labs had prototypes by WWII, so that covers Churchill.

Everyone else: Sorry, but you now be refered to as "Mostly Humans".