Human vs. ... Other

[Kelyn]

I believe that anything that has the ability to feel should be treated well, not just humans. I mean even the animals we rear need to be treated well. The fact that something can have a choice and feelings then it becomes an entity. Objectivity might make us biased towards humans. What if we get aliens? Will we mistreat them just because that are not humans? Human mercy should not be biased towards humans alone but even other beings that exist in the same capacity as humans.

I agree with you. Everything that has emotions and the ability to feel should be treated well. As far as how we would treat aliens, I'm afraid that the answer would be that we would mistreat them because they aren't human. As with Tau in the book, humans as a species are afraid of what they don't know. I suppose that's a holdover from ancient times when they didn't want to get eaten by new things. If we can't even treat our own people well, I doubt that clones or aliens have much of a chance. I appreciate you dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

I met with he nature vs nurture theory in sociology class. It sounds good to have it surfaced here again

That theory is very evident in this book, as well as many others. Our environment affects us as we grow up. In the book, because Tau's upbringing had been so sterile and lacking in affection, it negatively affected him, as opposed to being raised in a loving environment. Kalin, on the other hand, was reared in a human environment and, despite being modified, retained his humanity., Because of this, he was, in a way, able to 'share' that with Tau. If he had been reared in a more human environment, I think Tau would have turned out as human as any of us. Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[gelli_baranda]

Regardless of status, given the fact that they are patterned after humans and given the same treatment yet less by them, I am inclined to think that they shouldn't be stripped of their right no matter the circumstance of which they were born/created. They have a purpose: to help humans.

Humans should exercise responsibility over them just as the way humans take care of their family.

[victoriasimons]

The book definitely raising this ethical question. By giving the clones human-like features, the line is blurred. Even if we can logically prove them to be 'other', does this automatically mean that they do not deserve rights and are at the mercy of their masters?

[Kelyn]

Regardless of status, given the fact that they are patterned after humans and given the same treatment yet less by them, I am inclined to think that they shouldn't be stripped of their right no matter the circumstance of which they were born/created. They have a purpose: to help humans.

Humans should exercise responsibility over them just as the way humans take care of their family.

Yes, that's the purpose for which they were 'created': to help humans. But, being human themselves by right of having human DNA and the ability to show (even stunted) emotion and intelligence comparable to humans, should they be obliged to continue as simply 'humans helpers?' Or should they be given not limited rights, but the full rights afforded us as humans? Food for thought. Thanks so much for dropping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

The book definitely raising this ethical question. By giving the clones human-like features, the line is blurred. Even if we can logically prove them to be 'other,' does this automatically mean that they do not deserve rights and are at the mercy of their masters?

An ethical question indeed. But the scientists did not precisely give the clones "human-like features.' They were created using human DNA, and so, perforce, have the same features as any humans. I am hard-pressed to fathom how they could be logically proven to be 'other,' but your question is a good one. Even if they could, if they are that close to 'human,' should they be left to the mercy of the scientists who created them, especially since that treatment is so obviously cruel? In the end, do they deserve rights or have none? Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[angela roura]

Oh yikes! I have no idea how to respond to this! Should clones have human rights?? On one side- a clone is not a human. But on the other side, they are very human-like and I would feel SO bad saying that they do not deserve rights. Shouldn't any creature that contains even a little amount of intelligence have some basic rights? Not sure. I could be swayed either way.

[InventorT]

From the book, even though tau was created in the lab, it was done using human DNA so in essence deserving of every human right

[Kelyn]

Oh yikes! I have no idea how to respond to this! Should clones have human rights?? On one side- a clone is not a human. But on the other side, they are very human-like, and I would feel SO bad saying that they do not deserve rights. Shouldn't any creature that contains even a little amount of intelligence have some basic rights? Not sure. I could be swayed either way.

Okay, let's do some swaying! My first question is, how is a clone not human? They are created from human DNA and, despite Tau's unfortunate upbringing, are capable of exhibiting both the intelligence and emotions typical of humans. Second question. How are they just 'human-like?' (See above) and, since they are made from our DNA, wouldn't they, perforce, look like us? I definitely agree. They should have rights. Have I succeeded in swaying you?

[rahilshajahan]

Was Kata actually a clone? Kalin Taylor was born, and he did have a father and mother. In his case, they took a live human and modified him. Right? That's how I understood it. Isn't that how he knew what they were doing was wrong whereas Tau did not? I'm not a major sci-fi fan so sometimes when I read one I can get confused!

You are right. Kalin was human but was modified into a Project. But even if they were both clones, as long as they can feel pain, its always a NO when it comes to treating them badly.

[Brenda Creech]

Was Kata actually a clone? Kalin Taylor was born, and he did have a father and mother. In his case, they took a live human and modified him. Right? That's how I understood it. Isn't that how he knew what they were doing was wrong whereas Tau did not? I'm not a major sci-fi fan so sometimes when I read one I can get confused!

You are right. Kalin was human but was modified into a Project. But even if they were both clones, as long as they can feel pain, its always a NO when it comes to treating them badly.

Absolutely! I agree 100% with that!

[Banette]

Projects have the same intelligence and emotional capacity as regular humans do so I think that alone should afford them basic human rights. The only reason Tau doesn't seem human is because the scientists didn't raise him as a human. instead of actually figuring out what he was capable of they just assumed that he was lesser. If anything, I would predict that had the Project program continued as normal, there would come a point where projects rebelled and ended up with more rights than "normal" humans because they are physically superior, it'd be near impossible for a normal person to win one on one against a Project. So once they have the numbers, what's actually stopping them from taking over a country, continent, or even planet and subjugating the non clone population for revenge?

[Kelyn]

Projects have the same intelligence and emotional capacity as regular humans do so I think that alone should afford them basic human rights. The only reason Tau doesn't seem human is because the scientists didn't raise him as a human. instead of actually figuring out what he was capable of they just assumed that he was lesser. If anything, I would predict that had the Project program continued as normal, there would come a point where projects rebelled and ended up with more rights than "normal" humans because they are physically superior, it'd be near impossible for a normal person to win one on one against a Project. So once they have the numbers, what's actually stopping them from taking over a country, continent, or even planet and subjugating the non clone population for revenge?

That is a frightening thought and a good point as well. By treating them badly and not affording the basic human rights they deserve, we could very well be inviting our own subjugation. Wonder if the scientists ever thought of that! Thanks for stopping in and sharing this eye-opening thought with us!

[Sou Hi]

If we are talking about philosophy here, then we will need to discuss this: what makes a human a human? For example, can't an animal be a man, because it does not speak, does not invent tools, does not have ambition, etc.? Then, the clones, who are able to do everything a man can, why aren't they human?

Because clones are born in the lab? But then test-tube children are also artificial. Because clones don't have a background? If someone dies in the unknown with no papers for identification, are they not human either? Because clones don't have mums and dads? Abandoned children don't know of their parents either. And genetically speaking, clones do have a mum or a dad, from whom the gene was taken and duplicated. The only difference is that human has both of their parents, while clones only have one. However, this is not so abnormal. There're several cases of self-cloning in nature, and the copies are treated as the same race.

Thus, why can a man have human rights while the clones can not?

[Kelyn]

If we are talking about philosophy here, then we will need to discuss this: what makes a human a human? For example, can't an animal be a man, because it does not speak, does not invent tools, does not have ambition, etc.? Then, the clones, who are able to do everything a man can, why aren't they human?

Because clones are born in the lab? But then test-tube children are also artificial. Because clones don't have a background? If someone dies in the unknown with no papers for identification, are they not human either? Because clones don't have mums and dads? Abandoned children don't know of their parents either. And genetically speaking, clones do have a mum or a dad, from whom the gene was taken and duplicated. The only difference is that human has both of their parents, while clones only have one. However, this is not so abnormal. There're several cases of self-cloning in nature, and the copies are treated as the same race.

Thus, why can a man have human rights while the clones can not?

Beautifully and succinctly put! I particularly like the point clones actually having a genetic parent. I didn't know about self-cloning in nature, but that's a good point as well. Now I have to go look it up! Many of our reviewers, as well as myself, agree on your other points as well, especially about test-tube babies being similar to clones but still being considered human. I would add, in conjunction to the characteristics you listed for being human, I would include the ability to feel and learn to manage emotion. I appreciate your stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!