What is THE defining factor that makes a human a human?
| A human would be a living being that comes into existance during fertilization, when a sperm and an egg join. From that moment on, he/she is a human. Not after they first move, are born, after they speak, or eat, or do anything else, but when they are conceived. A living being that so closely resembles human behavior and appearance, but is not created as a human would (humanoid), is not a human. This is assuming the only difference between a humanoid and a human is how they were made, among other details, as it is implied in this show. That doesn't mean, though, that they shouldn't be treated as human. Ethics and empathy play a part on whether or not you think such a being has human rights. I tend to believe they do, as they do have human responsabilities. But I also believe that it is scientifically impossible to create such a humanoid in real life. |
| Damn this is deep. |
 |
| The biological humanoids are "human" in virtually every sense that matters, even if they are technically an artificial lifeform. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
chenfeng said: IhnalakoKaina said: This logic has a flaw. If it is not human, it cannot have "human rights". Now this doesn't mean we cannot give them rights, as animals have "animal rights" based on sufferage. So theoretically we can give them Humanoid rights but we cannot give them human rights as they are not human. So this is where i go back to my point. Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place. You can say that animals are the same and people treat them like their own family. However regardless of an individuals treatment of their "family", i ask you does society allow animals vote? Does society at large acknowledge any right that they may own property or roam freely as they wish? The answer is no. Any roaming roaming animals are categorized as 'stray' or 'wild'. Both understood as outside society and any animal inside society is recognized as property so they are in all respect slaves or individuals without freedom. So i digress back to my original point, you are either a human or you're not. You are either a Slave or you're not there is no both or in between in the reality of the world. So in the world building described in a advanced, progressive, and evolved society the very writing is a contradiction. Now I'm not saying that such a world is impossible but it wouldn't and couldn't be a stable and functioning society for very long, which goes against any likeliness it would be able to progress very far in the first place. After all the only reason why our society in life has progressed this far is because we have changed many of society's contradictions to make them ever so less contradictory even if just barely.A human would be a living being that comes into existance during fertilization, when a sperm and an egg join. From that moment on, he/she is a human. Not after they first move, are born, after they speak, or eat, or do anything else, but when they are conceived. A living being that so closely resembles human behavior and appearance, but is not created as a human would (humanoid), is not a human. This is assuming the only difference between a humanoid and a human is how they were made, among other details, as it is implied in this show. That doesn't mean, though, that they shouldn't be treated as human. Ethics and empathy play a part on whether or not you think such a being has human rights. I tend to believe they do, as they do have human responsabilities. But I also believe that it is scientifically impossible to create such a humanoid in real life. I think you missed the fact that unlike domesticated animals, humanoids would have intelligence and apparent self awareness. Bear in mind that they "solved most of the brain's mysticisms", and that is what made possible the creation of artificial brains in the image of natural ones. Still, there's no way to prove whether or not they have souls, but the fact that they look, feel and think like humans do is what makes how they are treated important, at least I think. This is because of the effect it would have in a human spirit if they treated what seems almost completly human, even if it's not, inhumanely. Obviously this has happened with actual human beings in the past, and still today, but we have supposedly mostly evolved from that. I guess it could go either way: It's fair to assume that racism would be generally frowned upon in a futuristic society, or certainly wouldn't be used as a cuddle to subjugate an entire group of people. Unless the author of the particular story said otherwise, in which case it would make sense that the humanoids be used as slaves or an inferior class. and please space out your paragraphs so they're easier to read. |
| Sorry, I still don't get the contradiction. I realized there was a part of what you said that I couldn't really get. Maybe if you elaborate on this: chenfeng said: Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place. I could get where you're coming from. Even though species of animals do have intelligence that is somehow complex and by no means simple, it still doesn't compare to human intelligence. I see how this can be dangerous in the sense that suddenly, people who, because of age or mental disability, do not possess the same intelligence the average person has, can be seen as less than or not human. But that's when the ethics and empathy I was talking about kicks in. Since they share our likeness, and because they are of our own flesh and blood, we recognize an intrinsic value to their lives. Remember that in ep 3 they talked about how, in the past, humanoids were not seen as human, like robots. It is not further explored yet as to what led humans to create humanoids, but we can guess it was to have them serve like Joe the dating robot and things like that. I think that this premise is consistent... We farm cows because, although they surely feel pain and distress, they serve to feed us. And more importantly, they don't have the level of intelligence and self awareness required to change that relationship. But humanoids would, and if we tried to exploit them it would mean war and conflict, as it has meant for actual humans throughout history. I guess that is why people began to treat them as human at some point. |
IhnalakoKainaJul 24, 2023 8:38 PM
chenfeng said: As for the idea that ethics or empathy have anything to do with the treatment of animals i laugh at the idea of it. Your reasoning being, " We farm cows because, although they surely feel pain and distress, they serve to feed us. And more importantly, they don't have the level of intelligence and self awareness required to change that relationship." So i ask you, who is it who decides that they serve to feed us and not some other organism or entity? It is we. Who is it who decides the definitions of the relationship with animals based on any arbitrary metrics of "intelligence" or "self awareness" that we created ourselves? It is we. So i think you hit the nail on the head here: But humanoids would, and if we tried to exploit them it would mean war and conflict, as it has meant for actual humans throughout history. I guess that is why people began to treat them as human at some point. In this proving that neither, ethics, morals nor virtue have in a most real sense anything to do with the with the actual treatment of marginalized groups but more rather the concept of power, and the threat of suffering, pain, death and destruction. We eat animals simply because we can and there is nothing they can do to stop us. what concepts and excuses like "needs", "convenience", or "diet", we make up for ourselves will never be able to get around this simple fact. which brings me back to my point of there being an inconsistency with the level of civilization and the legislature governing that very civilization. they are at odds with each other and simply cant coexist... at least not for very long. I think I see now. "It doesn't make sense that people in a future, advanced society created humanoids in their image, just to use them as tools, gave them arbitrary limits and didn't afford them rights like they would other humans" is what you mean? I guess I'd have to agree in a way. But: "Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were never seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place." I don't know why you'd think that as flawed and selfish as humans are, even in a thousand years, in a technologically advanced society capable of making artificial humans, they wouldn't stoop so low as to commit the same mistakes that plagues us today. I mean, if you look at ep 3, Joe the dating robot is not a humanoid, but instead what you could call a ChatGPT with a robotic body. It doesn't have a neural network, a brain, whether biological or artificial, but instead has a computer that runs a program. Yet he was made to look like a man, for the purpose of living with single women, cook for them and even dilate them... But Joe is still basically like a cleaning robot, a toy, a product. He doesn't actually have emotions, he wouldn't be able to detroit: become human. Then you could say that humanoids were an experiment meant to be an upgraded version of Joe. So it makes sense that they would make them to be like humans. Made to be slaves to take on the roles that other humans wouldn't or couldn't take. Prostitutes, soldiers, intensive manual laborers... And what stopped them from keeping humanoids as a second class? I guess you'd say power, the fear of destruction, resistance. But I believe, and I think it's ok if you disagree, that ethics and morals are not excuses, but motives. We don't have morality because we didn't like wrong things. Instead, we don't like wrong things BECAUSE we have morality. Cows would not exist in the scale that they do if it weren't for humans. We don't brutalize animals for fun. At least not sane people. Those that we hunt, we do because they are plagues (hogs or coyotes), they are dangerous, (wolfs, bears, pumas and tigers) or because we eat them. And animals kill other animals too, to eat, or survive. If we didn't have ethics, we would absolutely extinguish all life from earth apart from those we keep at farms. But people generally, without any other particular motive, don't want to see living things suffer needlessly. We would live in code geass' world, where, as the king says, all that matters is strength. I think your problem is with sociopaths who want or have power and are driven by their selfish interests. And I can relate, but I don't think the image of a human should be conflated with people like that. After all, there is the term humanity. Yeah I know I just said that humans are flawed, but still. |
IhnalakoKainaJul 25, 2023 7:29 PM
| This reminds me of a docu-movie about cloning I saw with my wifu some days ago. And she had a question: "will a human clone have soul?" My answer: clearly yes. The building blocks for a clone will be the same as anyone else, except than it will be a 1:1 copy of the DNA of another human being. |
| 34 years old ossan who still watches anime |
Yeshaiah2015yesh said: humans are bezark creatures their is no way a human can understand what a human is and what makes a human it's not like plants and trees will open their mouths and say this beings are what we call human's Would be pretty tough to do since most don't have mouths. |
KingYoshiAug 21, 2023 9:40 AM
 |
| All the above, I think. Human is a very complex subject with its distinct features which can't be divided from one another. |
 |
All I could think of when I saw the title.  |
More topics from this board
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 10 DiscussionStark700 - Sep 15, 2023 |
28 |
by SaadMarjani
»»
Nov 11, 9:48 AM |
|
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Sep 8, 2023 |
54 |
by SaadMarjani
»»
Nov 11, 9:41 AM |
|
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Jul 28, 2023 |
53 |
by SaadMarjani
»»
Nov 10, 12:16 PM |
|
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 5 DiscussionStark700 - Aug 4, 2023 |
29 |
by xADONIS
»»
Aug 31, 6:22 AM |
|
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 7 DiscussionStark700 - Aug 18, 2023 |
33 |
by Rob7
»»
Jul 13, 1:23 PM |