What is it to be Human?
What is it to be Human.?
It is taken as a matter of rote that just having the physical characteristics of a naked, predominantly un-furred, biped puts one in the family of homo sapient and hence being human. Human here is a generic term that covers male and female and although there are certain physical and psychological difference between male and female, the external differences are more obviously a part of the reproductive requirement of the species.
As well as these obvious physical difference there are the additional external looks presented in the colour of skin pigmentation, hair tone, body size and facial shape. These are all parcelled up in a physical appearance that is underscored with hidden attributes like cognitive intelligence, emotional drives and overall acuity activity. All of this though is generally overridden by the principle characteristic of physical appearance. Such is an external appearance that generally on a fist encounter with a creature having this façade, one would note these characteristic as being humanoid and probable of human genus, at least in a modern sense.
The term ‘human’ and its connotations are accepted as more likely to be applicable to modern humans. Humans up to the 20th centaury that took it upon themselves to offer the label for a narrow selection of the human race providing that the descriptive element appealed to their own vision of what should be human. For a long while anything other than white generated a fine separation of species that was not really considered appropriately human and could be treated as slightly above being an ‘animal’. Also pre historic consideration raised additionally more coarse separation of the species that is held distinct as a link to homo sapient. Yet modern man is assumed to have emerged only some 10K years ago with early protolithic man like Neanderthals looked on as an interesting sub class, rather like a development of an intelligent ape.
This aspiration to place a label of a common physical acceptability of being ‘human’, onto a humanoid, that has certain physical and ‘intelligent’ characteristics, has been fraught with some difficulty. The evolution to make the quality of being ‘human’ open to a selected cadre of civilisations has sparked the argument of eugenics, pinnacled in the deliberate degrading treatment of black (non) humans and certain (non) human racial groups. In many ways the idea of what is human or what humanity is; is very much linked to the whole idea of the self defined intelligence of the current predominant creature - Humans. Other earth creature may have a small element of reluctant ‘behavioural intelligence’ some might have a (inefficiently?) larger brains but they are not as intelligent as human, definitely not human nor acuity consciously aware.
Understanding of the essence of what it is to be human is not that important to wo/man now, as there is no recognised competitive creature, apart from the suspicion of another racial group, but at some state in the future being able to identify ‘humanity’ in another species will be important.
For the moment the assumption is that unless a species conforms to homo saps structure of being human, with its physical appearance, comparable intelligence and social ability, it would be for humanity itself psychologically difficult to form a relationship opinion compatible with being ‘human’ and the danger is in not recognising or completely neglecting to recognise the compounding ‘human’ elements that may reside in a different form of species, to the detriment of establishing communication.
Disregarding the obvious external appearances of being physically humanoid, how does one identify the human element? In definitive self declared human terms it is more or less self evident as the description off being human is located within the form.
Another way perhaps of reaching the core of what it is to be human may be in identifying traits that exhibits the ability to display intelligence shown by a creature choosing to do or not to do that which is or is not natural to the species, communicating proficiency and coexisting within the context of shaping or not shaping its environs. This at least demonstrates that there is a cognitive process at work leading to a considered action and it does not necessarily need verbal communication. As there is seen in other animals, what is called adaptive behavioural or learnt ability, even to the use of ‘tools’ this does not move the problem much beyond the tacit weak assumption of some level of intelligence at work, even though the creatures are securely located in the environment they are in and have no need to do any more than meet their survival needs. Yes they have intelligence but as it stands now they are not human nor do they have comparable human traits.
So the challenge of another species being superior to humans is always avoided on the grounds that it does not look human, does not communicate like a human and although there may be some display of interesting traits, there is little chance of it being compared favourably with humanity. If another species cannot be called ‘human’ then the tendency will be to place it at a lesser position to being human and from that will follow a disparaging approach. It may be intelligent to the extent that humans recognise what intelligence is within them selves and can offer a modicum of recognised intelligence of action in another species but humanity will assert it is not human!
Assume that an alien species of a greater intellect sufficient to overcome the ability of space travel but which looks considerable different from humanity – homo sapient. Picture a four limbed creature with the front ones shaped like paws with extendable mobile talons, the rear larger and similar, a long thick tail with the whole body that was covered in feathers with what looked like wings protruding from its back and a bird like head. Would it be human?
As it would not conform to the picture of being humanoid, it would not be considered anything other than an unusual-interesting animal. Some allowance may be made for the fact that it may have intelligence in association with the use of a physical artefact of transportation but it would not be accorded human status. Apart from its looks which would the first barrier to overcome, how would communication be achieved if its own ‘verbal’ communication was by high pitch bat like sound wave that was perhaps beyond human hearing and it also made not understood movements, where is the communication? What do you call it? And how could you conceivably say it was human or had humanity traits,
Possibly a name may be generated to begin to hang some form of identity on it, one could give it a name like say felix tachybaptus as a way of noting specific attributes but humans would still find it very difficult to accept it as being comparable to human. Given the difficulty that homo saps have had in accepting the diversity of physique and modes of culture within themselves let alone understand what intelligence is, how will it react to something different?
Does humanity simply hold onto the idea that being ‘human’ with all that it implies is only open to homo saps and that any other creature may be intelligent as felix tachybatus but are not human and therefore may lack all ‘human’ elements or sensitivities?
Consequently may it be possibly better to accept that being humanoid is not necessary a sign of being human and something that is not humanoids may be completely human displaying all the cognitive intelligence of or exceeding humanity, even without the use of artefacts?
Identifying what it is to be human will inevitable come up against a variety of religious arguments that will revolve around, our god is the only god, our prophet has more truth than yours and humans have souls. The comfort of these arguments in support of the uniqueness of humanoid humanity is only available as long as wo/man is the only prime species of earth. This is partially the reason why no cognitive ability is acknowledged with other animals, disregarding the environmental content they may be locked into. However this comfort of species isolation will eventually be breached and if wo/man have not learned to reach for the human element within their own humanoid assortment or give due regard to other animals, how much more difficult will it be to acquiesce to something alien?
Maybe what it is to be human is so elusive it remains ill-defined but forever only associated with an accepted physical shape. In which case a new conceptual model has to be applied to the word for whatever a new superior species is to be called, it will not be human but will have all or more of the attributes and qualities that may be currently thought of as belonging to humans.
© Renot 2007
It is taken as a matter of rote that just having the physical characteristics of a naked, predominantly un-furred, biped puts one in the family of homo sapient and hence being human. Human here is a generic term that covers male and female and although there are certain physical and psychological difference between male and female, the external differences are more obviously a part of the reproductive requirement of the species.
As well as these obvious physical difference there are the additional external looks presented in the colour of skin pigmentation, hair tone, body size and facial shape. These are all parcelled up in a physical appearance that is underscored with hidden attributes like cognitive intelligence, emotional drives and overall acuity activity. All of this though is generally overridden by the principle characteristic of physical appearance. Such is an external appearance that generally on a fist encounter with a creature having this façade, one would note these characteristic as being humanoid and probable of human genus, at least in a modern sense.
The term ‘human’ and its connotations are accepted as more likely to be applicable to modern humans. Humans up to the 20th centaury that took it upon themselves to offer the label for a narrow selection of the human race providing that the descriptive element appealed to their own vision of what should be human. For a long while anything other than white generated a fine separation of species that was not really considered appropriately human and could be treated as slightly above being an ‘animal’. Also pre historic consideration raised additionally more coarse separation of the species that is held distinct as a link to homo sapient. Yet modern man is assumed to have emerged only some 10K years ago with early protolithic man like Neanderthals looked on as an interesting sub class, rather like a development of an intelligent ape.
This aspiration to place a label of a common physical acceptability of being ‘human’, onto a humanoid, that has certain physical and ‘intelligent’ characteristics, has been fraught with some difficulty. The evolution to make the quality of being ‘human’ open to a selected cadre of civilisations has sparked the argument of eugenics, pinnacled in the deliberate degrading treatment of black (non) humans and certain (non) human racial groups. In many ways the idea of what is human or what humanity is; is very much linked to the whole idea of the self defined intelligence of the current predominant creature - Humans. Other earth creature may have a small element of reluctant ‘behavioural intelligence’ some might have a (inefficiently?) larger brains but they are not as intelligent as human, definitely not human nor acuity consciously aware.
Understanding of the essence of what it is to be human is not that important to wo/man now, as there is no recognised competitive creature, apart from the suspicion of another racial group, but at some state in the future being able to identify ‘humanity’ in another species will be important.
For the moment the assumption is that unless a species conforms to homo saps structure of being human, with its physical appearance, comparable intelligence and social ability, it would be for humanity itself psychologically difficult to form a relationship opinion compatible with being ‘human’ and the danger is in not recognising or completely neglecting to recognise the compounding ‘human’ elements that may reside in a different form of species, to the detriment of establishing communication.
Disregarding the obvious external appearances of being physically humanoid, how does one identify the human element? In definitive self declared human terms it is more or less self evident as the description off being human is located within the form.
Another way perhaps of reaching the core of what it is to be human may be in identifying traits that exhibits the ability to display intelligence shown by a creature choosing to do or not to do that which is or is not natural to the species, communicating proficiency and coexisting within the context of shaping or not shaping its environs. This at least demonstrates that there is a cognitive process at work leading to a considered action and it does not necessarily need verbal communication. As there is seen in other animals, what is called adaptive behavioural or learnt ability, even to the use of ‘tools’ this does not move the problem much beyond the tacit weak assumption of some level of intelligence at work, even though the creatures are securely located in the environment they are in and have no need to do any more than meet their survival needs. Yes they have intelligence but as it stands now they are not human nor do they have comparable human traits.
So the challenge of another species being superior to humans is always avoided on the grounds that it does not look human, does not communicate like a human and although there may be some display of interesting traits, there is little chance of it being compared favourably with humanity. If another species cannot be called ‘human’ then the tendency will be to place it at a lesser position to being human and from that will follow a disparaging approach. It may be intelligent to the extent that humans recognise what intelligence is within them selves and can offer a modicum of recognised intelligence of action in another species but humanity will assert it is not human!
Assume that an alien species of a greater intellect sufficient to overcome the ability of space travel but which looks considerable different from humanity – homo sapient. Picture a four limbed creature with the front ones shaped like paws with extendable mobile talons, the rear larger and similar, a long thick tail with the whole body that was covered in feathers with what looked like wings protruding from its back and a bird like head. Would it be human?
As it would not conform to the picture of being humanoid, it would not be considered anything other than an unusual-interesting animal. Some allowance may be made for the fact that it may have intelligence in association with the use of a physical artefact of transportation but it would not be accorded human status. Apart from its looks which would the first barrier to overcome, how would communication be achieved if its own ‘verbal’ communication was by high pitch bat like sound wave that was perhaps beyond human hearing and it also made not understood movements, where is the communication? What do you call it? And how could you conceivably say it was human or had humanity traits,
Possibly a name may be generated to begin to hang some form of identity on it, one could give it a name like say felix tachybaptus as a way of noting specific attributes but humans would still find it very difficult to accept it as being comparable to human. Given the difficulty that homo saps have had in accepting the diversity of physique and modes of culture within themselves let alone understand what intelligence is, how will it react to something different?
Does humanity simply hold onto the idea that being ‘human’ with all that it implies is only open to homo saps and that any other creature may be intelligent as felix tachybatus but are not human and therefore may lack all ‘human’ elements or sensitivities?
Consequently may it be possibly better to accept that being humanoid is not necessary a sign of being human and something that is not humanoids may be completely human displaying all the cognitive intelligence of or exceeding humanity, even without the use of artefacts?
Identifying what it is to be human will inevitable come up against a variety of religious arguments that will revolve around, our god is the only god, our prophet has more truth than yours and humans have souls. The comfort of these arguments in support of the uniqueness of humanoid humanity is only available as long as wo/man is the only prime species of earth. This is partially the reason why no cognitive ability is acknowledged with other animals, disregarding the environmental content they may be locked into. However this comfort of species isolation will eventually be breached and if wo/man have not learned to reach for the human element within their own humanoid assortment or give due regard to other animals, how much more difficult will it be to acquiesce to something alien?
Maybe what it is to be human is so elusive it remains ill-defined but forever only associated with an accepted physical shape. In which case a new conceptual model has to be applied to the word for whatever a new superior species is to be called, it will not be human but will have all or more of the attributes and qualities that may be currently thought of as belonging to humans.
© Renot 2007
posted by Renot at 7:34 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home