What makes a human?

Azriel-chan said:
to fuck that is what makes as human

IhnalakoKaina said:
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.

chenfeng 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.

IhnalakoKaina said:

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.

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.

IhnalakoKaina said:
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:

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.

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.