Honestly I don't think that being a "human" is what matters to me so much as being a "person." And that could just be years and years of reading SFF, and probably at this point there's no other...
Honestly I don't think that being a "human" is what matters to me so much as being a "person." And that could just be years and years of reading SFF, and probably at this point there's no other species on earth that falls into that bucket, so it doesn't matter but the distinction feels meaningful to me. But it's worth noting all human would fall into the category of person unless they were, I suppose, braindead. This isn't a distinction meant to exclude certain members of the species from personhood.
People are worthy of existence simply by existing. They're worthy of a base line of respect and love. They may lose most everything else and respect or love no one themselves, and they still matter for purposes lf being a person. Being a person means having the ability to do wonderful and terrible things alike. If we could all agree that we deserved that respect and love for each other, we probably couldn't hurt each other other so much and so often.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett, people are where the fallen angel meets the rising ape. He said he himself would rather be the rising ape, and I'd agree. I believe people have obligations to each other and little makes me as angry as people not living up to those obligations.
(Phew that was definitely a human writing human stuff, right?)
GNU Terry Pratchett
I recently lost a family member, dear friend, and pet. I raised Ford from a tiny kitten. I rescued him with his sister from a farm; my father-in-law worked this farm in his downtime. He told us...
I recently lost a family member, dear friend, and pet. I raised Ford from a tiny kitten. I rescued him with his sister from a farm; my father-in-law worked this farm in his downtime. He told us about a batch of kittens born recently—and that those without homes would be destroyed. It was hard not to adopt more.
Ford was the glue of this house. The other cats in the house all connected with him in their unique ways.
To Pozzy, he was like an older brother who she could always play wrestle with whenever she got board.
To Blinky, at first, he was a nuisance; he relentlessly would try to cuddle her, despite rebuff after rebuff. That is, until, one day, she allowed it. And then, later, she welcomed it. In her last couple of years, he would clean her; her purr, at those times, would reverberate through the room. They loved each other like an old couple.
To his sister, Joy, he was a brother. He was a pain in the ass: often seeing her someplace cozy and then, deciding he wanted that cozy spot, would badger her until she'd get up and walk away. At that point, he'd casually arrange himself in the same place his sister was a moment before.
And then, at other times, he would simply curl up near Joy—or right next to her and cuddle. Siblings.
To my wife and I, he was the big dopey-seeming cat who would reliably greet us on every return, the pal who most often climbed up on the couch and cuddled against a leg, the boy who loved to cuddle between his mom and dad, the goofball who not only late in life discovered that tummy scratches were his favorite thing but would also position and reposition and reposition himself so that you had no choice but to give them.
He was the glue that held this house together.
He was a person. Weeks later, I miss him dearly. There is very much a hole in my heart and in this home where he used to be.
I've found that all animals, given an opportunity, reveal themselves to be similarly unique—to have personhood.
I love my animals deeply and they're individuals, but personhood as I used it above is not inclusive of my cats. They have no obligations to me, for example. I'm not saying that to diminish...
I love my animals deeply and they're individuals, but personhood as I used it above is not inclusive of my cats. They have no obligations to me, for example.
I'm not saying that to diminish anything you said, just an operational definition of terms without which we cannot discuss the topic. Ford was well loved and always will be part of your family.
I do not understand the distinction you make. I see "personhood" as existing, having emotion, and having a brain. I can't accept "obligation" as the defining characteristic. If shown compassion,...
I do not understand the distinction you make.
I see "personhood" as existing, having emotion, and having a brain. I can't accept "obligation" as the defining characteristic.
If shown compassion, over time, many animals return it. Compassion begets compassion. Its absence, alienation.
I don't disagree. But I don't really want to get in an argument about animal intelligence and sapience following a very heartfelt story about the recent loss of your very loved cat. I'm pretty...
I don't disagree. But I don't really want to get in an argument about animal intelligence and sapience following a very heartfelt story about the recent loss of your very loved cat. I'm pretty sure that's just an asshole move.
I have multiple cats, and have loved and lost a number of cats and dogs in my life. I do not ascribe my definition of "personhood" to them, even as I accuse one of my cats of being "a people" on a regular basis, and consider them all individuals.
I reworded the original question into "person" rather than human both as a lighthearted nod to my username and to the fiction that I adore, but also because I would be inclusive of other sapient species - and perhaps for example cetaceans do meet that criteria now, I'm not sure I can say. But if you want to swap the word "human" back in there, please feel free if it makes it less upsetting. As I noted I functionally consider the two the same.
Since you brought up SFF, I think it's worth mentioning Orson Scott Card's Hierarchy of Foreignness from Speaker for the Dead. I think the line between Varelse and Ramen is particularly...
Since you brought up SFF, I think it's worth mentioning Orson Scott Card's Hierarchy of Foreignness from Speaker for the Dead.
Utlänning - a stranger recognized as human from the same planet as a subject, but of a different nation or city.
Främling - a stranger recognized as human, but from a different planet than a subject.
Ramen - strangers recognized as "human", but of another sentient species entirely.
Varelse - true aliens; they may or may not be sentient beings, but are so foreign that no meaningful communication is possible with the subject
I think the line between Varelse and Ramen is particularly interesting because that is the place (in the fictional hypothetical) where one decides how much otherness is to much.
Side note: I want to acknowledge that OSC has gone to a problematic place in his later years. Nevertheless, his writing is an important part of the development of Science Fiction.
I hate that man so much. His bigotry is deeply in his early works too and I hate that he ruined stories I loved with it. I don't hate many people but Orson Scott Card is one of them. He's just...
I hate that man so much. His bigotry is deeply in his early works too and I hate that he ruined stories I loved with it. I don't hate many people but Orson Scott Card is one of them. He's just become more vocal about the hate in the past 20 years.
Anyway, I think the divisions are interesting but not super useful without those external categories of aliens being present. As someone else said, without that external pressure we have little real ability to know where another species fall.
Several folks have already noted the rising ape meets fallen angel quote, here's the full context. -Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Several folks have already noted the rising ape meets fallen angel quote, here's the full context.
All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
I'm unconvinced my father is a homo sapien. I'm not sure then what that makes me. Unqualified for this conversation? I, partly, return jest for jest. I, partly, wonder what I am.
I'm unconvinced my father is a homo sapien. I'm not sure then what that makes me. Unqualified for this conversation?
I, partly, return jest for jest. I, partly, wonder what I am.
Honestly despite popular depictions, I don't think we currently believe that homo neanderthalensis was actually less emotionally intelligent or intelligent in general, but, also, sorry your dad sucks.
Honestly despite popular depictions, I don't think we currently believe that homo neanderthalensis was actually less emotionally intelligent or intelligent in general, but, also, sorry your dad sucks.
Often when I ponder subjects like this I think about my favorite Vonnegut book, Galapagos, a book about the consequences of our oversized brains. While our brains allow us to create works of great...
Often when I ponder subjects like this I think about my favorite Vonnegut book, Galapagos, a book about the consequences of our oversized brains. While our brains allow us to create works of great beauty, they also make us capable of great cruelty, beyond what any animal is capable of. Unfortunately I am at work and cannot dive deeper, but it is a hilarious and thought provoking read, and often overlooked under the shadow of his more well known books
Animals are capable of awful, awful things. Many mammals will play with their still-living food. I specified mammals because the insect world is a horror show beyond words. We don't call it...
Animals are capable of awful, awful things. Many mammals will play with their still-living food. I specified mammals because the insect world is a horror show beyond words. We don't call it cruelty when they do it because they lack the ability to reason. Or perhaps it's because cruelty is a systemic issue in nature and we don't expect anything better.
When humans hurt one another, we feel the pain as if it were our own. We wonder why the perpetrators didn't choose to be kind and merciful instead. More importantly, we don't expect cruelty from another human being because cruelty is the exception, not the rule.
I think our ability to recognize cruelty and compare it to something better is one of the best things about human beings. The very existence of the word says a lot about our best traits.
To be willing to rise above our beastly beginnings and to strive for and contribute to a better future for the following generations. To tell stories of all kinds and to carry those we lose along...
To be willing to rise above our beastly beginnings and to strive for and contribute to a better future for the following generations. To tell stories of all kinds and to carry those we lose along with us for as far as we can share them with others. To spread the gardens of civilization to lands that would welcome them while adapting to the physical laws of those new frontiers. To die well with as much dignity as can be mustered.
Spread love for yourself and others you really only have one chance to do so.
Some things that come to mind are a package of instincts and desires, namely to belong and to improve. I am separating this from what it means to be a mammal or a living creature and just focusing...
Some things that come to mind are a package of instincts and desires, namely to belong and to improve. I am separating this from what it means to be a mammal or a living creature and just focusing on the human aspect.
I've always felt a bit like a loner, and that I've preferred the company of animals, even though I know that is not truly what's best for me and replacing all my human contacts with animals wouldn't bring me more joy. But since I was a child, I was fascinated by having animal friends much more so than human friends, and still always felt a lacking in human connections or community. As I've grown older, I assume the need for this connection is my instinct for belonging. It's been a bit warped due to early traumas and also the isolation of modern society but despite being mostly alone as a young child, I still always wanted to belong to a "village". So far I've been happiest with a partner, my cat, and a close group of friends. Second happiest was when I was a kid and part of a church community with my dad.
Also since a child, I've been compelled to create and improve, and then improve upon my and others' creations. I still have this compulsion though it's been muddied by burn out and perfectionism. I assume this is instinct as well. I would also include improving my surroundings and improving myself to this instinct.
Another part of being human is being the dominant species on earth. I help shape the earth and the quality of life for the other creatures that live here. My current example is ants are allowed to exist outside in limited numbers and any that enter my home will discover the wrath and power of the resident human titans. BTW I don't blanket poison the outdoors to kill the ants - this is awful for the creatures outside and kills any insect that lands nearby, not to mention terrible for fish, frogs and waterways where that stuff inevitably ends up. I use ant bait. Bait in the spring and fall around the house exterior and it keeps their numbers down. If they do grow in numbers, it's away from the house.
That doesn't mean anything to me. It does not cause me strong emotion. The idea of being human is a source of curiosity for science fiction. In the real world there is no need to problematize the...
That doesn't mean anything to me. It does not cause me strong emotion. The idea of being human is a source of curiosity for science fiction. In the real world there is no need to problematize the issue. "Human" is not a disputed group. Whenever we get true AGI or extraterrestrial visitors, suddenly everyone will become a trans-humanistic philosopher. Right now, without external pressure, what makes me human is as important and invisible as the water is to fish.
I strongly disagree. Proposing that Black people are less than human - perhaps only 3/5 human, is a story as old as the United States itself and has been used as a way to justify exclusion and...
"Human" is not a disputed group.
I strongly disagree.
Proposing that Black people are less than human - perhaps only 3/5 human, is a story as old as the United States itself and has been used as a way to justify exclusion and oppression for hundreds of years.
I grew up with people who would tell you sincerely and with a straight face that black people were biologically distinct from white people. That they weren't "the same" as white people. That interracial relationships were "unnatural". That was in the 80's and 90's.
Nothing I've seen in the last few years has persuaded me that it has really gotten any better, even if it's more underground. I think in the upcoming 4 years in the US, we're going to see a lot more open racism, bigotry, and hate. It's vile, and pretending that it doesn't happen is part of what allows it to continue.
I was anticipating that objection but was a bit lazy to type on the phone. Generally speaking contemporary bigotry is about considering others an inferior kind of human rather than a creature...
I was anticipating that objection but was a bit lazy to type on the phone.
Generally speaking contemporary bigotry is about considering others an inferior kind of human rather than a creature outside of the scope of the human race in a literal sense. Although it is not my intention to minimize your valid grievances and the emotions attached to them, we are talking about different things.
I am talking about extraterrestrials and artificial intelligences - - entities which most people would have no trouble calling "not human" because that would not be bigotry. That would be actually true.
So I hope you understand that the existence of extraterrestrials and artifical intelligences would pose unique challenges of a different kind. This cannot be equated to bigotry in the manner you propose.
Although that seems very obvious to me, I will reinforce my point: I don't believe that a direct comparison between interracial couples and extraterrestrial life helps elucidate this discussion.
Also, please understand that I made a comment from my own experience of living in this world. It is not my intent to prescribe how anyone else should frame their existence. I know that is sometimes lost when I write tersely, but there's another human on the other side of the screen ;)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding (or being misunderstood). I wasn't trying to suggest that considering an extraterrestrial or AI intelligence "not human" is bigotry. I agree it's not. Though many people...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding (or being misunderstood). I wasn't trying to suggest that considering an extraterrestrial or AI intelligence "not human" is bigotry. I agree it's not. Though many people here (myself included) have discussed this in an alien/AI context, the prompt was simply, "What does it mean to you to be a human."
The point I was trying to make is that who we consider human is not a settled thing, and that people do regard Black people and other marginalized groups as not human in a literal sense, and that this is used as a way to justify mistreatment.
I appreciate the reminder that you are human. I did "come at you" more than a bit in my response. I spent a lot of time trying to understand why I was upset before I wrote this reply, and this is what I came up with.
I think what tripped my original response is that rhetorically, what you wrote is aligned with a common pattern in the circles I grew up that functions in practice to downplay the day-to-day suffering of marginalized groups. In those settings, that rhetoric reinforces the (White) privileged in-group's perception that the problem doesn't exist, and it reinforces alternate explanations that are used to explain away the visible aspects of the suffering (examples "they don't deserve better" or "it's a problem of their own making" or "they are simply not intelligent enough to do any better").
To borrow from Audre Lorde:
you cannot make love to concrete
if you cannot pretend
concrete needs your loving
In most cases, I don't think it's a conscious, malicious thing - people aren't saying (to themselves or aloud), "ah yes, I'm gonna dehumanize me some (ethnic slur)s today." But that's the insidious part. It seems reasonable on its face while still working in practice to perpetuate that suffering. So I think it's important to recognize and disrupt it where I can.
However, I don't know enough about you or your situation to attribute those things to you, and my first response wasn't fair to you for that reason. I want to be clear that I'm trying to highlight a general pattern that I see in the world, and not to attribute it to you personally.
It is quite interest. You got "tripped" by a comment by a 42 year old black man with multiple concrete experiences with racism because you though I was being privileged. You tried to "school me"...
It is quite interest. You got "tripped" by a comment by a 42 year old black man with multiple concrete experiences with racism because you though I was being privileged. You tried to "school me" on what you perceived as an oppressive discourse.
On the contrary. The internet is a weird place, isn't it? Saying racism in 2024 is not about the literal idea that I am not human is not equivalent to diminishing the impact of racism.
I was just trying to say some very personal thing about myself and someone jumped at me.
Agree it is a weird place. Though it makes me wonder how much of all of my interactions (even the in-person ones) are so much something I am bringing to it, and if that means I'm never really...
Agree it is a weird place. Though it makes me wonder how much of all of my interactions (even the in-person ones) are so much something I am bringing to it, and if that means I'm never really connecting with the truth of who that person is.
Anyway, thanks for your patience with an internet stranger :)
Love, sex, connection. Then on a more primal level, eat, sleep, sex. Sex there twice because it can fill both a primal urge, but also a vulnerable sharing and coming together as one (no pun...
Love, sex, connection. Then on a more primal level, eat, sleep, sex. Sex there twice because it can fill both a primal urge, but also a vulnerable sharing and coming together as one (no pun intended).
I don't have a very productive answer for such a broad question, but as it urges me to think about it more philosophically, I'll simply share a video I saw recently from CJ the X that is tangentially related to my experiences as Human™.
CJ can be a bit long winded and an acquired taste but I absolutely love their passion and humour and always enjoy the meandering journey thru their psyche. Parasocial relationships are real. Also if you enjoy their brand of neuroticism, CJ's breakdown of Bo Burnham's Inside is probably my all-time favourite video on the Internet.
I recently took two separate courses to meet requirements in my degree program that allow me to think about this from a different lens. In a storytelling class, we had to record ourselves...
I recently took two separate courses to meet requirements in my degree program that allow me to think about this from a different lens.
In a storytelling class, we had to record ourselves retelling stories. (Online course, otherwise I'm sure this would be in front of a class.) Not from notes, not from pure memorization, but a somewhat improvised presentation that touches on the key points while allowing us to incorporate gestures and movements and emotions that help connect the story with ourselves and with the audience. Per that class, sharing stories in this way is a very important part of being human, as it connects the past and present, incorporates beliefs of deities and karmic balance, and allows us to express the emotions that separate us from similar animals on the Earth. In modern times, we think a lot about generational wealth and how it gives the upper financial class of society all kinds of advantages. But this course implies there is another type of generational wealth - the stories that have been told from one generation to another, which build a rich history of culture and family.
More recently, I finished a course that explored the possibility of "ETCs" - extraterrestrial civilizations - and the likelihood that they exist. A good 50% of this course explored how we came to be, and how remarkable it really was. For exploring the possibility of other civilizations out there, we spent a lot of time reviewing things in the context of the Fermi paradox, and utilized the Drake equation to put some very, very rough numbers to this. But there were some philosophical questions involved in this course as well. What if an ETC is aware of our presence and location, but cannot communicate with us? What if they could communicate with us, but have a reason not to - fear, disinterest (perhaps in how primitive we are compared to them), or still building up resources to execute intergalactic domination that makes us their next target? Or what if we are just a simulation that someone else is watching, either to gain something from, or just for fun? And of course, one of the possibilities is that we are just alone, and no other civilizations exist. Should any of these outcomes somehow be proven with 100% confidence, that would certainly change how we view being human.
What do I think about all of this? Ultimately, I think being human is just about doing our best. If you were to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you can see how "doing our best" extends to doing our best at succeeding in those things. Both of these courses can apply here. Jumping over physiological needs, safety is the next most important. I believe that need for safety extends over both ourselves and our families. And depending on your relationships and mindset, your family could extend to your entire neighborhood, country, or all of Earth. If we discovered life outside of our solar system, our need for safety could extend that far. One way or the other, a sense of belonging is important to feel a like you have some purpose in life. Looking back to the stories your family or culture has told over time can help you find this, and you can expand it by sharing your own stories with the next generations.
This was quite rambly but I hope that's excused when we're talking philosophy. :)
Honestly I don't think that being a "human" is what matters to me so much as being a "person." And that could just be years and years of reading SFF, and probably at this point there's no other species on earth that falls into that bucket, so it doesn't matter but the distinction feels meaningful to me. But it's worth noting all human would fall into the category of person unless they were, I suppose, braindead. This isn't a distinction meant to exclude certain members of the species from personhood.
People are worthy of existence simply by existing. They're worthy of a base line of respect and love. They may lose most everything else and respect or love no one themselves, and they still matter for purposes lf being a person. Being a person means having the ability to do wonderful and terrible things alike. If we could all agree that we deserved that respect and love for each other, we probably couldn't hurt each other other so much and so often.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett, people are where the fallen angel meets the rising ape. He said he himself would rather be the rising ape, and I'd agree. I believe people have obligations to each other and little makes me as angry as people not living up to those obligations.
(Phew that was definitely a human writing human stuff, right?)
GNU Terry Pratchett
I recently lost a family member, dear friend, and pet. I raised Ford from a tiny kitten. I rescued him with his sister from a farm; my father-in-law worked this farm in his downtime. He told us about a batch of kittens born recently—and that those without homes would be destroyed. It was hard not to adopt more.
Ford was the glue of this house. The other cats in the house all connected with him in their unique ways.
To Pozzy, he was like an older brother who she could always play wrestle with whenever she got board.
To Blinky, at first, he was a nuisance; he relentlessly would try to cuddle her, despite rebuff after rebuff. That is, until, one day, she allowed it. And then, later, she welcomed it. In her last couple of years, he would clean her; her purr, at those times, would reverberate through the room. They loved each other like an old couple.
To his sister, Joy, he was a brother. He was a pain in the ass: often seeing her someplace cozy and then, deciding he wanted that cozy spot, would badger her until she'd get up and walk away. At that point, he'd casually arrange himself in the same place his sister was a moment before.
And then, at other times, he would simply curl up near Joy—or right next to her and cuddle. Siblings.
To my wife and I, he was the big dopey-seeming cat who would reliably greet us on every return, the pal who most often climbed up on the couch and cuddled against a leg, the boy who loved to cuddle between his mom and dad, the goofball who not only late in life discovered that tummy scratches were his favorite thing but would also position and reposition and reposition himself so that you had no choice but to give them.
He was the glue that held this house together.
He was a person. Weeks later, I miss him dearly. There is very much a hole in my heart and in this home where he used to be.
I've found that all animals, given an opportunity, reveal themselves to be similarly unique—to have personhood.
I love my animals deeply and they're individuals, but personhood as I used it above is not inclusive of my cats. They have no obligations to me, for example.
I'm not saying that to diminish anything you said, just an operational definition of terms without which we cannot discuss the topic. Ford was well loved and always will be part of your family.
I do not understand the distinction you make.
I see "personhood" as existing, having emotion, and having a brain. I can't accept "obligation" as the defining characteristic.
If shown compassion, over time, many animals return it. Compassion begets compassion. Its absence, alienation.
I don't disagree. But I don't really want to get in an argument about animal intelligence and sapience following a very heartfelt story about the recent loss of your very loved cat. I'm pretty sure that's just an asshole move.
I have multiple cats, and have loved and lost a number of cats and dogs in my life. I do not ascribe my definition of "personhood" to them, even as I accuse one of my cats of being "a people" on a regular basis, and consider them all individuals.
I reworded the original question into "person" rather than human both as a lighthearted nod to my username and to the fiction that I adore, but also because I would be inclusive of other sapient species - and perhaps for example cetaceans do meet that criteria now, I'm not sure I can say. But if you want to swap the word "human" back in there, please feel free if it makes it less upsetting. As I noted I functionally consider the two the same.
Thank you
Since you brought up SFF, I think it's worth mentioning Orson Scott Card's Hierarchy of Foreignness from Speaker for the Dead.
I think the line between Varelse and Ramen is particularly interesting because that is the place (in the fictional hypothetical) where one decides how much otherness is to much.
Side note: I want to acknowledge that OSC has gone to a problematic place in his later years. Nevertheless, his writing is an important part of the development of Science Fiction.
I hate that man so much. His bigotry is deeply in his early works too and I hate that he ruined stories I loved with it. I don't hate many people but Orson Scott Card is one of them. He's just become more vocal about the hate in the past 20 years.
Anyway, I think the divisions are interesting but not super useful without those external categories of aliens being present. As someone else said, without that external pressure we have little real ability to know where another species fall.
Several folks have already noted the rising ape meets fallen angel quote, here's the full context.
-Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
It certainly seems that, at least, we need delusions to function in this world.
Both my parents were homo sapiens. Therefore, I'm a purebred human.
Sure, brag about it (◠‿・)
Humor appreciated.
I'm unconvinced my father is a homo sapien. I'm not sure then what that makes me. Unqualified for this conversation?
I, partly, return jest for jest. I, partly, wonder what I am.
You are correct; your father was most likely a Homo sapiens.
More likely a Neanderthal, considering his minimal emotional intelligence.
Honestly despite popular depictions, I don't think we currently believe that homo neanderthalensis was actually less emotionally intelligent or intelligent in general, but, also, sorry your dad sucks.
My parents just loafed around. I think that makes me purebread homo sapiens.
Often when I ponder subjects like this I think about my favorite Vonnegut book, Galapagos, a book about the consequences of our oversized brains. While our brains allow us to create works of great beauty, they also make us capable of great cruelty, beyond what any animal is capable of. Unfortunately I am at work and cannot dive deeper, but it is a hilarious and thought provoking read, and often overlooked under the shadow of his more well known books
I live in hope of the day that we lose our terrifically oversized brains and are covered in fur like sea lions.
Animals are capable of awful, awful things. Many mammals will play with their still-living food. I specified mammals because the insect world is a horror show beyond words. We don't call it cruelty when they do it because they lack the ability to reason. Or perhaps it's because cruelty is a systemic issue in nature and we don't expect anything better.
When humans hurt one another, we feel the pain as if it were our own. We wonder why the perpetrators didn't choose to be kind and merciful instead. More importantly, we don't expect cruelty from another human being because cruelty is the exception, not the rule.
I think our ability to recognize cruelty and compare it to something better is one of the best things about human beings. The very existence of the word says a lot about our best traits.
The difference, of course, is that we can recognize cruelty for what it is and perpetuate anyway.
To be willing to rise above our beastly beginnings and to strive for and contribute to a better future for the following generations. To tell stories of all kinds and to carry those we lose along with us for as far as we can share them with others. To spread the gardens of civilization to lands that would welcome them while adapting to the physical laws of those new frontiers. To die well with as much dignity as can be mustered.
Spread love for yourself and others you really only have one chance to do so.
Some things that come to mind are a package of instincts and desires, namely to belong and to improve. I am separating this from what it means to be a mammal or a living creature and just focusing on the human aspect.
I've always felt a bit like a loner, and that I've preferred the company of animals, even though I know that is not truly what's best for me and replacing all my human contacts with animals wouldn't bring me more joy. But since I was a child, I was fascinated by having animal friends much more so than human friends, and still always felt a lacking in human connections or community. As I've grown older, I assume the need for this connection is my instinct for belonging. It's been a bit warped due to early traumas and also the isolation of modern society but despite being mostly alone as a young child, I still always wanted to belong to a "village". So far I've been happiest with a partner, my cat, and a close group of friends. Second happiest was when I was a kid and part of a church community with my dad.
Also since a child, I've been compelled to create and improve, and then improve upon my and others' creations. I still have this compulsion though it's been muddied by burn out and perfectionism. I assume this is instinct as well. I would also include improving my surroundings and improving myself to this instinct.
Another part of being human is being the dominant species on earth. I help shape the earth and the quality of life for the other creatures that live here. My current example is ants are allowed to exist outside in limited numbers and any that enter my home will discover the wrath and power of the resident human titans. BTW I don't blanket poison the outdoors to kill the ants - this is awful for the creatures outside and kills any insect that lands nearby, not to mention terrible for fish, frogs and waterways where that stuff inevitably ends up. I use ant bait. Bait in the spring and fall around the house exterior and it keeps their numbers down. If they do grow in numbers, it's away from the house.
That doesn't mean anything to me. It does not cause me strong emotion. The idea of being human is a source of curiosity for science fiction. In the real world there is no need to problematize the issue. "Human" is not a disputed group. Whenever we get true AGI or extraterrestrial visitors, suddenly everyone will become a trans-humanistic philosopher. Right now, without external pressure, what makes me human is as important and invisible as the water is to fish.
I strongly disagree.
Proposing that Black people are less than human - perhaps only 3/5 human, is a story as old as the United States itself and has been used as a way to justify exclusion and oppression for hundreds of years.
I grew up with people who would tell you sincerely and with a straight face that black people were biologically distinct from white people. That they weren't "the same" as white people. That interracial relationships were "unnatural". That was in the 80's and 90's.
Nothing I've seen in the last few years has persuaded me that it has really gotten any better, even if it's more underground. I think in the upcoming 4 years in the US, we're going to see a lot more open racism, bigotry, and hate. It's vile, and pretending that it doesn't happen is part of what allows it to continue.
I was anticipating that objection but was a bit lazy to type on the phone.
Generally speaking contemporary bigotry is about considering others an inferior kind of human rather than a creature outside of the scope of the human race in a literal sense. Although it is not my intention to minimize your valid grievances and the emotions attached to them, we are talking about different things.
I am talking about extraterrestrials and artificial intelligences - - entities which most people would have no trouble calling "not human" because that would not be bigotry. That would be actually true.
So I hope you understand that the existence of extraterrestrials and artifical intelligences would pose unique challenges of a different kind. This cannot be equated to bigotry in the manner you propose.
Although that seems very obvious to me, I will reinforce my point: I don't believe that a direct comparison between interracial couples and extraterrestrial life helps elucidate this discussion.
Also, please understand that I made a comment from my own experience of living in this world. It is not my intent to prescribe how anyone else should frame their existence. I know that is sometimes lost when I write tersely, but there's another human on the other side of the screen ;)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding (or being misunderstood). I wasn't trying to suggest that considering an extraterrestrial or AI intelligence "not human" is bigotry. I agree it's not. Though many people here (myself included) have discussed this in an alien/AI context, the prompt was simply, "What does it mean to you to be a human."
The point I was trying to make is that who we consider human is not a settled thing, and that people do regard Black people and other marginalized groups as not human in a literal sense, and that this is used as a way to justify mistreatment.
I appreciate the reminder that you are human. I did "come at you" more than a bit in my response. I spent a lot of time trying to understand why I was upset before I wrote this reply, and this is what I came up with.
I think what tripped my original response is that rhetorically, what you wrote is aligned with a common pattern in the circles I grew up that functions in practice to downplay the day-to-day suffering of marginalized groups. In those settings, that rhetoric reinforces the (White) privileged in-group's perception that the problem doesn't exist, and it reinforces alternate explanations that are used to explain away the visible aspects of the suffering (examples "they don't deserve better" or "it's a problem of their own making" or "they are simply not intelligent enough to do any better").
To borrow from Audre Lorde:
In most cases, I don't think it's a conscious, malicious thing - people aren't saying (to themselves or aloud), "ah yes, I'm gonna dehumanize me some (ethnic slur)s today." But that's the insidious part. It seems reasonable on its face while still working in practice to perpetuate that suffering. So I think it's important to recognize and disrupt it where I can.
However, I don't know enough about you or your situation to attribute those things to you, and my first response wasn't fair to you for that reason. I want to be clear that I'm trying to highlight a general pattern that I see in the world, and not to attribute it to you personally.
It is quite interest. You got "tripped" by a comment by a 42 year old black man with multiple concrete experiences with racism because you though I was being privileged. You tried to "school me" on what you perceived as an oppressive discourse.
On the contrary. The internet is a weird place, isn't it? Saying racism in 2024 is not about the literal idea that I am not human is not equivalent to diminishing the impact of racism.
I was just trying to say some very personal thing about myself and someone jumped at me.
I hate the internet sometimes.
Agree it is a weird place. Though it makes me wonder how much of all of my interactions (even the in-person ones) are so much something I am bringing to it, and if that means I'm never really connecting with the truth of who that person is.
Anyway, thanks for your patience with an internet stranger :)
Love, sex, connection. Then on a more primal level, eat, sleep, sex. Sex there twice because it can fill both a primal urge, but also a vulnerable sharing and coming together as one (no pun intended).
I don't have a very productive answer for such a broad question, but as it urges me to think about it more philosophically, I'll simply share a video I saw recently from CJ the X that is tangentially related to my experiences as Human™.
CJ can be a bit long winded and an acquired taste but I absolutely love their passion and humour and always enjoy the meandering journey thru their psyche. Parasocial relationships are real. Also if you enjoy their brand of neuroticism, CJ's breakdown of Bo Burnham's Inside is probably my all-time favourite video on the Internet.
I recently took two separate courses to meet requirements in my degree program that allow me to think about this from a different lens.
In a storytelling class, we had to record ourselves retelling stories. (Online course, otherwise I'm sure this would be in front of a class.) Not from notes, not from pure memorization, but a somewhat improvised presentation that touches on the key points while allowing us to incorporate gestures and movements and emotions that help connect the story with ourselves and with the audience. Per that class, sharing stories in this way is a very important part of being human, as it connects the past and present, incorporates beliefs of deities and karmic balance, and allows us to express the emotions that separate us from similar animals on the Earth. In modern times, we think a lot about generational wealth and how it gives the upper financial class of society all kinds of advantages. But this course implies there is another type of generational wealth - the stories that have been told from one generation to another, which build a rich history of culture and family.
More recently, I finished a course that explored the possibility of "ETCs" - extraterrestrial civilizations - and the likelihood that they exist. A good 50% of this course explored how we came to be, and how remarkable it really was. For exploring the possibility of other civilizations out there, we spent a lot of time reviewing things in the context of the Fermi paradox, and utilized the Drake equation to put some very, very rough numbers to this. But there were some philosophical questions involved in this course as well. What if an ETC is aware of our presence and location, but cannot communicate with us? What if they could communicate with us, but have a reason not to - fear, disinterest (perhaps in how primitive we are compared to them), or still building up resources to execute intergalactic domination that makes us their next target? Or what if we are just a simulation that someone else is watching, either to gain something from, or just for fun? And of course, one of the possibilities is that we are just alone, and no other civilizations exist. Should any of these outcomes somehow be proven with 100% confidence, that would certainly change how we view being human.
What do I think about all of this? Ultimately, I think being human is just about doing our best. If you were to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you can see how "doing our best" extends to doing our best at succeeding in those things. Both of these courses can apply here. Jumping over physiological needs, safety is the next most important. I believe that need for safety extends over both ourselves and our families. And depending on your relationships and mindset, your family could extend to your entire neighborhood, country, or all of Earth. If we discovered life outside of our solar system, our need for safety could extend that far. One way or the other, a sense of belonging is important to feel a like you have some purpose in life. Looking back to the stories your family or culture has told over time can help you find this, and you can expand it by sharing your own stories with the next generations.
This was quite rambly but I hope that's excused when we're talking philosophy. :)