Human vs. ... Other

[DEEPA PUJARI]

I think all clones should have equally human rights. I feel that the person who is actually cloned is technically the parent (mother and father) of the clone and should be the guardian of his or her clone. Having said that no clones should be made without the consent of the original human concerned.

[AJ_Drenda]

We have two questions here. As a clone, Tau is a copy of another human. Whether he is human depends solely on your definition of humanity. If you assume that humans have souls/spirits, then there is a question as to how they obtain them. If a soul comes to you when a human is born, does it come to you as well when you're cloned?
From a different perspective, humans are truly original genetic combinations, one of a kind. There can be no copy provided by nature (identical twins are a rare exception, but not in the same way). Cloning provides a copy, stripping the original of its DNA uniqueness. Does that make the copy a human or renders both of the defined humanity?

Kata is a modified human, and so, remains a human. He might be considered a sub-human or uber-human, depending on who is judging him, but the main category remains relatively unchanged. It's a Wolverine question really. Is he any less human? Or maybe even more human because of his changes?

[Kelyn]

This sort of gets into a lot of very different issues;
Does human DNA make you human? I would bet probably yes. If your DNA was 1% different you would be a chimpanzee. So human DNA should make you human.
Should Projects have the same rights as humans? Assuming in this universe all humans have the same rights... it would be very hard to mark a difference. The author brilliantly saves the issue of "how would a random person be able to differentiate a Project from a regular human?" by giving a lot of importance to identity cards.
The last question is, would society as a whole, allow for projects to be denied rights? I would love to believe in our universe, this wouldn't be possible. We as humans anthropomorphize everything, we assign feelings to animals, artificial intelligences.. even autonomous vacuums. I believe uprising would occur if mistreatment of clones was known... but then again, human history might not agree with me.

I don't know about a 1% difference making us chimpanzees, but I do agree that if the basis of your 'form' has human DNA, you are indeed human, especially if you were born human as Kata was. I would hope that humanity, as a whole, would stand up for the Projects and not let them be denied their own humanity. Unfortunately, humans are herd animals. If enough of them said 'no,' I fear that the vast majority would follow. (Sorry for my dim view of humanity as a whole.) I much prefer the reality you preferred, that society would rebel if they found out the Projects were being mistreated. Thanks so much for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

From the book, the projects are lab creations so they can't be human.. And in this, they deserve no human rights because their actions can go to the extreme if not controlled hence should be slaves to the scientists.

Correct, as far as the book goes. What I am asking is, what do you think? Kata was born human. How can this be taken away just because he was 'modified' against his will? In the book, it's apparent that he still has independent thought and has not been 'programmed' (for lack of a better term) to be compliant as Tau has been. Doesn't that also speak for his humanity? Food for thought. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

They have no mother, no father. So...what are they?

I find the way you put this a bit funny since in our society, we have people that don't know who their father or mother is. Many of them are forced to live on the streets, but we still consider them human, don't we? I don't think the issue of having parents matters when it comes to defining a human. (I completely understand what you are trying to say about having no parents, I was just reminded of this situation)
Also, if they are living, breathing creatures, they deserve a certain amount of rights. Even animals are given rights. There are even animals that are protected by the government; they are given food, a decent habitat, and protection (people can even be jailed for harming these animals).

Good points! Yes, many people in our society don't know who their parents are, but they know that they had to have had them! That's where I was going with that. Although, technically, now that I think about it, even Tau had to have come into being using someone's DNA. Would that person be considered his parent? Hmm...I'll have to think about that one. And yes, I also agree that at the very least they should have fundamental rights. I just argue that, as humans, they should have all the rights others do. Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

The concept of project Tau reminded me, to some extent, of the Jason Borne story. Human or not, once they become a lab project, any rights they might have had simply disappear. They are brainwashed so that their behavior is shaped into a non-rational nature so that they can then be controlled with a conditioned-reflex mechanism (the same way Pavlov controlled his dogs' behavior);

The problem is if you keep some level of reason - minute as it may be - you can never fully controlled someone's behavior and that little reason that remains might grow and render the creature non-manipulable. The Prologue is very clear about this:

He didn't mention what had been bothering him for some time now; that if you trained a creature to question parts of an order solely for additional clarification, wouldn't there eventually come a point where it would question the order in its entirety?

Yes, they do seem to have missed that little detail with Kata and even, to a lesser extent, with Tau. The 'conditioned-reflex' wasn't complete enough to squash all independent thought, and as long as even a spark existed, there was the potential for them to make a bid for freedom. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Stephanie Runyon]

This is a difficult one to think about. Since they have feelings and higher-level brain functions, I would think they should have the same rights. On the other hand, as an experiment, there would be limitations of what freedom of choice they were allowed. I know that the first cloning was a sheep and while it was a successful experiment, that animal actually aged a lot more quickly and had a short life span.

[Damis Seres Rodriguez]

In terms of how they were born and made, perhaps not human. However, we even afford certain rights to animals, so it could be argued they deserve some kind of rights.

This is a very sharp subject. Granted, if we get black and white, they could be considered as non humans. However, the mere fact of being living creatures is (or should be) enough to give them certain worth. Within the context of the book though, I am not sure that really matters. They are, after all slaves with next to zero rights, and that fact is not going to change regardless if they deserve a better treatment or not.

[AJ_Drenda]

I think all clones should have equal human rights. I feel that the person who is actually cloned is technically the parent (mother and father) of the clone and should be the guardian of his or her clone. Having said that no clones should be made without the consent of the original human concerned.

I agree with you on the subject of rights. The guardianship/parenthood issue seems more complicated than this. I agree that the should not be created without the permission of the original subject (human). But what if they are made without permission? Should the responsibility for their lives remain with the original?

[AJ_Drenda]

From the book, the projects are lab creations so they can't be human. And in this, they deserve no human rights because their actions can go to the extreme if not controlled hence should be slaves to the scientists.

Correct, as far as the book goes. What I am asking is, what do you think? Kata was born human. How can this be taken away just because he was 'modified' against his will? In the book, it's apparent that he still has independent thought and has not been 'programmed' (for lack of a better term) to be compliant as Tau has been. Doesn't that also speak for his humanity? Food for thought. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

You make a great point on the originality of thought as a trait of humanity. It's how AI's are tested in most of SF novels or films. If they can generate independent and original thought processes, then they can aspire to the original mode of thinking, emotional engagement and the semblance of humanity.

[Realsy]

I found this aspect interesting. Genetically, they are human. They physically have all the same scientific aspects: same number of chromosomes, internal organs, bones, musculature, etc. Mentally, they are also able to talk, ask questions, learn, etc. Plus they are able to feel (pain, emotions): Tau felt concern when he first met Kalin for those first few minutes and confusion over Kalin's vocabulary. Apparently, they were "deliberately designed not to be too intelligent, for fear that they would rebel." Not sure how that worked considering only Project Tau was a success so far out of 20. I vote they are human and therefore deserve not only the basic rights of food, drink, and shelter but also not to be treated the way they were. Positive reinforcement and even logic could have worked too in certain aspects. I understand the pain sessions, especially if they were going to be military but they could have used different methods than cattle prods (which I also don't believe in).

[tjportugal]

The concept of project Tau reminded me, to some extent, of the Jason Borne story. Human or not, once they become a lab project, any rights they might have had simply disappear. They are brainwashed so that their behavior is shaped into a non-rational nature so that they can then be controlled with a conditioned-reflex mechanism (the same way Pavlov controlled his dogs' behavior);

The problem is if you keep some level of reason - minute as it may be - you can never fully controlled someone's behavior and that little reason that remains might grow and render the creature non-manipulable. The Prologue is very clear about this:

He didn't mention what had been bothering him for some time now; that if you trained a creature to question parts of an order solely for additional clarification, wouldn't there eventually come a point where it would question the order in its entirety?

Yes, they do seem to have missed that little detail with Kata and even, to a lesser extent, with Tau. The 'conditioned-reflex' wasn't complete enough to squash all independent thought, and as long as even a spark existed, there was the potential for them to make a bid for freedom. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!

It is also interesting to notice how the "bid for freedom" could be use both for good or evil. That's the thing with being able to think and the freedom that comes with it: you can think and chose good or evil. The question is: what was the overall choice of each project? Was the killing of the scientists at the beginning an act of evil or an act of self-defense?

[LyorBoone]

They are Projects with human like features. Since they are lab created beings, they serve in the pleasure of their masters, that is, the scientists. Technically, they are slaves to the scientists and may not enjoy the same rights as other humans. And true, they don't have parents, so it would be appropriate to call them human-based clones.

If two clones have a child, do you consider their child a human-based clone?

[Kelyn]

This is a difficult one to think about. Since they have feelings and higher-level brain functions, I would think they should have the same rights. On the other hand, as an experiment, there would be limitations of what freedom of choice they were allowed. I know that the first cloning was a sheep and while it was a successful experiment, that animal actually aged a lot more quickly and had a short life span.

It is a true quandry. What exactly defines "being human?" Is it, as you said having "feelings and higher-level brain functions?" But wait, that would make chimpanzees and possibly dolphins human. Hmmm...could it be our form then? Or perhaps a combination of both? I personally think it comes down to DNA. If the DNA says "human" then human it is, with all the rights (and problems) that come along with being human. How it was created is irrelevant. Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!

[Kelyn]

We have two questions here. As a clone, Tau is a copy of another human. Whether he is human depends solely on your definition of humanity. If you assume that humans have souls/spirits, then there is a question as to how they obtain them. If a soul comes to you when a human is born, does it come to you as well when you're cloned?
From a different perspective, humans are truly original genetic combinations, one of a kind. There can be no copy provided by nature (identical twins are a rare exception, but not in the same way). Cloning provides a copy, stripping the original of its DNA uniqueness. Does that make the copy a human or renders both of the defined humanity?

Kata is a modified human, and so, remains a human. He might be considered a sub-human or uber-human, depending on who is judging him, but the main category remains relatively unchanged. It's a Wolverine question really. Is he any less human? Or maybe even more human because of his changes?

Beautifully put and good points all. But, if their humanity is based on having or not having a soul (regardless of how one gets a soul), does that mean people who believe that they don't are allowed to treat them as less than human and those who think they do treat them as human? On your second point, perhaps, in a way, clones could indeed be considered the identical twins of their donor. I'll have to give that some thought! The comparison to Wolverine fits the situation well. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts!