So, we were doing a bunch of discussions about chimaeras and such, and it got me thinking.
In philosophy of the mind, we discussed what it was to be a person. How does what science is learning mean to the question of what it means to be a person?
Well, first, one might claim that to be of human genetic material is enough. But with chimaeras, the idea is to combine two different DNA types in one organism. I would like to stipulate that at some point in time, we will in fact combine human DNA with animal DNA. If that is the case, then how much human genetic material do you need to be considered human? 100%? 95%? It seems like this would be a tough line to draw. I feel like personhood isnt so easily defined.
Second, one might claim that intelligence/self awareness is the key. But what do we do when an animal finds self-awareness, either through natural development, or through human tinkering? do we then consider them to be at a similar personhood level? Or are they just smart animals?
I wonder if our conventional definitions of personhood have to change to allow for new changes in creature composition. thoughts?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
My Clustermap
Catan Glory
There has been no Catan recently, so no glory to be had.
Wins: 3/10/07, 4/15/07, 6/22/07
Wins: 3/10/07, 4/15/07, 6/22/07
Smacky's Tumblelog
3 comments:
I think our current definitions must change in order to really understand whats going on. I am fairly certain that even if we did figure out how to talk with another animal (such as dolphins) and found them to be of an itelligence close to ours, we would just consider them smart animals. Dumb things would be said like, if they are so smart they would not get stuck in tuna nets or that they should be able to defend themselves.
Also you can look at the fact that some monkies are as smart as a mentally handicaped person (who is considered a person) but we do not treat these monkies like humans, not even close. So the current view is that the 'animal' must be as intelligent or more intelligent than the average human in a human like manner. Again with the dolphins, they may be brilliant but if they don't act in a way that we think is intelligent, we don't even consider it no matter how smart they are.
So I think by current standards a chimera would definatly be looked on as an human/animal not just a human. I also think that your going to see people rising up against human tinkering like that for a long long time (not saying it wont happen but that this will upset people). Its just like X-men, these people tinkered with their genes, we don't know what they can do and so we fear them. We would most definatly have them on lists just like the movies too.
So I think that many of the set norms we currently have will be challenged over the next century, not because we just want to redefine them but because we must redefine them.
I think from the strictest sense, that to be a human you would need to be 100% human dna. However, I think that the term human and person should not be used interchangeably in this discussion. Humanoids (to steal the classification from Star Trek - yes I'm a nerd) can be persons even if they are not 100% human. If alien lifeforms made it to Earth, would we consider them beneath us because they weren't human? They would be more advanced than us at least in space travel. I don't know if that is as relevant but it is an example.
I guess in determining person levels one could look at reasoning capabilities. Not necessarily abilities but capabilities (this would prevent mentally handicapped humans from being denied personhood status). I don't know enough about animal biology to know if that would already put what we consider animals into personhood status. For instance, a cows brain may have the capability to reason in an advanced way but a cow doesn't have the ability. I would not give cows person status at this point in time. I think I read a book somewhere that said the difference between humans and other animals is how we treat our dead. This makes me thing it is based on social structures.
Again, I don't know that that is a good system because we are a dependent creature. It is to our benefit to have social systems. A selfsustaining non-human may not have social systems because there would be no need. Well, those are the thoughts
To open the discussion to something less talked about as dolphins and monkies generally have center stage...
Elephants use graveyards, mourn their dead and show signs of having feelings (happiness, depression, fear etc). They also have amazing memories and thought processes. They demonstrait the ability to reason and make logical choices based on the circumstances at hand and past experiences. They have complex mothods of communication and are capable of passing infomation on to their young.
In short what I am saying is that the definition of person should be 'human'. I say this only because that is how we use the word currently and to change it would be misleading.
A proper modern definition of 'human' would be to have more than 50% (or a specified amount) in common with the human genome. You could never say 100% because all of our DNA is different, no one is 100% the same, so the threshold must be established. Hell men and women are almost as different as humans and our closest monkey relative.
While saying 50% would include some of the animal world, in a time when people can mix their DNA is allows for those who have more than half the make up of a human to be counted as human. Basing the definition on capabilities leads to having to look at each person on a case by case basis, which is impractical. We currently use IQ tests and the like to determine if a person is retarded (though exceptions can be made), the test must be broad and definative. Such as a DNA compairison.
The other alternative is to set the threshold higher to say 95% (which may or may not, I think it does, Paul? include some animals) and call every one else who has partial human genes 'humanoid'. This is perfectly reasonable and would ensure that all 'humans' by current standards are included as humans.
I think making this distinction however is leading us down a bad path. When you make a distinction of humans vers humanoids you run into do they have the same rights? I guess I have always objected to lables like that. It encourages the feelings that 'they' are different. If a person mingles their DNA and is covered in tiger fur, should they be treated differently?
To be fair to encoperate what Beth was thinking and mine you could say they must have X amount of DNA in common with 'humans' and they must be able to pass an 'test' of sorts that is not 'human' biased (like the IQ test is/was white people biased, so this test can't descriminate if you don't have an opposable thumb or something like that).
Bah you get the idea, I am not rewriting that into something more elloquent, I was writing and thinking at the same time... you get what I am saying.
Post a Comment