Human vs. ... Other
- Jorge Leon Salazar
- Book of the Month Participant
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: 03 Mar 2019, 07:06
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 150
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jorge-leon-salazar.html
- Latest Review: Mrs Geddes and other stories by Saman Mahanama Dissanayake
Re: Human vs. ... Other
- Mallory Porshnev
- In It Together VIP
- Posts: 426
- Joined: 20 May 2018, 17:52
- Currently Reading: Moloka'i
- Bookshelf Size: 332
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-pricklypurple.html
- Latest Review: The Paradize Inn by Sheri O'Sullivan
-
- Posts: 245
- Joined: 02 Jul 2018, 06:56
- Currently Reading: The 1000 most important questions you will ever ask yourself
- Bookshelf Size: 51
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-sydney-nyamasoka.html
- Latest Review: The Harder I Fall, The Higher I Bounce by Max James
Interesting question. The projects are originally the invention of the scientists not their offspring and as such they are not humans as the scientists are.They only have features that make them similar to humans which can distort the views on their rights for example.
We assess this from evaluating the intentions of the scientists, what exactly do they intend to accomplish with these projects ?
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 28 Apr 2020, 06:57
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 20
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mehwish-qaiser.html
- Latest Review: The Mindset by Ace Bowers
Thanks for that, I finally get it, I barely read sci-fi but whenever I do I end up confusedJudasFm wrote: ↑02 Apr 2020, 17:00You're absolutely right Tau was a clone; Kata/Kalin wasn't.B Creech wrote: ↑02 Apr 2020, 13:13 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!
- Lisa A Rayburn
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
- Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
- Bookshelf Size: 267
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
- Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
- Reading Device: B018QAYM7C
Interesting. I'm not sure that just looking human would work for me. There may be aliens out there somewhere that look like us as well. I think it is the fact that they have emotions, instincts, and sentience of humans as well as stemming from our DNA that would make them human and, therefore, deserving of the same rights and freedoms. What do you think?Rosemary Okoko wrote: ↑21 May 2020, 09:56 Having no parents and being a product of scientists, they are not human but look like humans and this likeness to humans gives them the rights.
- Ngozi Onyibor
- Member of the Month
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: 19 Mar 2019, 05:19
- Favorite Book: Sugar & Spice
- Currently Reading: The Wizard of Fire
- Bookshelf Size: 174
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-ngozi-onyibor.html
- Latest Review: Devine Enquiries by Martin Hull
- mariana90
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 14 Jan 2019, 19:50
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 30
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mariana90.html
- Latest Review: Zonas de quema by Jorge P. Newbery
- Reading Device: B00L89V1AA
I think that before we arrive to a conclusion, we need to determine exactly what it means to be human. Do you HAVE to have a mother and father? What about abandoned children? What about in-vitro fertilization? I think that centering the discussion around how we got here is a bit reductive.
- Lisa A Rayburn
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
- Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
- Bookshelf Size: 267
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
- Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
- Reading Device: B018QAYM7C
I'm not so sure about that. Although Tau, who was raised by the scientists from day one, did have difficulty even defining emotions, I think Kalin definitely got through to him on some level. I think it's a matter of what we consider as 'human.' Is it the ability to feel? Having human DNA? Having been 'born' in a human fashion (that is, via male and female genes/DNA, or whatever you wish to call it)? Possessing the right form (humanoid)? Or is it a combination of these things and more? Food for thought. Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!Michelle Fred wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 16:36 Even though the projects were created with human DNA, I don't think they should be accorded human rights. They are incapable of experiencing the depth of feelings that humans can regardless of their engineering.
- Lisa A Rayburn
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
- Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
- Bookshelf Size: 267
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
- Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
- Reading Device: B018QAYM7C
That sounds much like I Robot. I'm not sure, but I think that was Asimov as well. Is it the same book by a different name? I agree that this 'argument' is somewhat the same as in that/those book(s). But, obviously, even if not considered human, clones are much closer to that state than are robots. Hmmm....what is human. Good question. I certainly don't have a solid answer to that. I have centered my argument around the clones having human DNA and thus they should be acknowledged as human, but I see your point about much of the discussion centering around 'how we got here.' I'm curious to know how you would 'center' the question.mariana90 wrote: ↑25 May 2020, 09:58 This discussion reminds me of the movie Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams (based on a novelette by Isaac Asimov). There, the question was whether a robot could be considered human.
I think that before we arrive to a conclusion, we need to determine exactly what it means to be human. Do you HAVE to have a mother and father? What about abandoned children? What about in-vitro fertilization? I think that centering the discussion around how we got here is a bit reductive.
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: 25 May 2020, 15:14
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 10
- hasincla
- Posts: 224
- Joined: 04 Feb 2020, 09:00
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 50
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-hasincla.html
- Latest Review: Fortune Cats with Full Tummies by Dave Hutchinson
-
- Posts: 76
- Joined: 25 May 2020, 15:14
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 10
-
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 6473
- Joined: 10 May 2017, 19:49
- Currently Reading: The Savior
- Bookshelf Size: 530
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kdstrack.html
- Latest Review: How To Be Successful by M. Curtis McCoy
- mariana90
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 14 Jan 2019, 19:50
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 30
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-mariana90.html
- Latest Review: Zonas de quema by Jorge P. Newbery
- Reading Device: B00L89V1AA
They are different books. The argument for accepting robots as humans was that their "robotic" parts were substituted by synthesized organs (which humans were also using), and that the robotic fluid helping his body function was substituted by a blood equivalent. This caused the body to age and thus die, making them biologically "equal" to humans.Kelyn wrote: ↑25 May 2020, 15:45 That sounds much like I Robot. I'm not sure, but I think that was Asimov as well. Is it the same book by a different name? I agree that this 'argument' is somewhat the same as in that/those book(s). But, obviously, even if not considered human, clones are much closer to that state than are robots. Hmmm....what is human. Good question. I certainly don't have a solid answer to that. I have centered my argument around the clones having human DNA and thus they should be acknowledged as human, but I see your point about much of the discussion centering around 'how we got here.' I'm curious to know how you would 'center' the question.
However, in Asimov's story, the real source of the robot's humanity was the fact that he expressed joy at carving something out of wood. To me, this represents our humanity better than our bodies. So I guess I would center the question around expressions of emotion, original thoughts, creativity, all these ineffable aspects of ourselves that we barely understand. But I don't really have an answer to the question of what does it mean to be human hehehe.
- Lisa A Rayburn
- Previous Member of the Month
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
- Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
- Bookshelf Size: 267
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
- Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
- Reading Device: B018QAYM7C
Honestly, I'm not that religious, so I hadn't considered that aspect. I can see how that should be taken into account, though. Even if we call a soul a less religious term such as 'lifeforce,' it is still something humans seem to possess. I agree that having come from human DNA and therefore (in my opinion) human, Tau would have a soul no matter the mechanics of how he was made. Kalin, of course, undeniably possessed this life force as he was initially human rather than a hybrid. I appreciate all of you joining in the discussion. Hearing all the different opinions is very interesting!kdstrack wrote: ↑26 May 2020, 23:13 I agree with Odette Chace that we need to take into account that humans have a soul. If Tau was cloned with human DNA, then he would have a soul - regardless of how he was trained or treated by the scientists. Kalin was always human. The "modifications" did not remove his soul. The author throws us off by calling Tau a Project and by describing him as simple, (a childish mind.) His characteristics do not change his essence.