Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Should people who's brains work in a very different way to normal humans be considered human? Also, should people who's brains are structured in a way that stops them from having any memories or being self aware be regarded as 'humans', or primitive organisms?

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
-- beginning of sarcasm

Of course they shouldn't. People that are mentally defective should be hunted down and destroyed to keep the gene pool free from contamination.

I believe it was Robert Heinlein (but it could have been Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov) who said that anyone that doesn't understand math is not completely human.

So lets solve all of the world's problems with global warming, poverty, and crime by eliminating everyone without a degree in mathematics or one of the hard sciences. I say if you can't do a Standard Deviation ... you are a Standard Deviant.

-- end of sarcasm

Thus Rob ... while your idea may make some perverted sense to you ... it is a slippery slope from which you, undoubtedly, would be among the second wave of victims. Get over it!


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I thought he asked a pointed question that got right to the crux of the matter. I did not think for one second that he was advocating killing retarded people or classifying them as non-human.

What I thought he was doing was taking a highly abstract conversation and expressing it in real terms. We're taking words that have reasonably firm meanings and we're thinking of different situations and asking ourselves - do the terms still make sense.

What is intelligence? What is sentience? What is human? What is a human being? To what extent do our answers to these questions reflect our collective moral sense?

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
"Human" refers to qualities of our species, homo sapiens, that make us different from other animals. Usually, it refers to those unique qualities as speech, complex reasoning, complex emotion, symbolic thought, and the like.

This refers to an aggregate set of qualities that exist in general across the population. Individual members of the population, however, may exhibit such qualities in varying degree -- or even not at all -- but still remain members of the population.

Thus, the child of a human mother is still considered human, even if she cannot speak. Or even if she cannot engage in complex reasoning. Or even if she cannot think symbolically.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
People that are mentally defective should be hunted down and destroyed to keep the gene pool free from contamination.
Absent a demonstrable objective giftedness (e.g., idiot savants), anybody with an IQ below 70 should be sterilized and thereafter wholly supported by its family, or euthanized by the State.

Do not invest in a future you do not want. Do invest in a future you do want.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Yet Another Crank. You nailed it. And on the flip side.. if, "Should people who's brains work in a very different way to normal humans be considered human?" -Rob .. then people who have high "IQs" (whatever the hell that is) are suspected of not being human? I think that I know what you are trying to convey Rob, but try to elaborate as to why you feel this way. Also explain why a human is not human (except based upon genetics). Sure, we are all different and unique.. ok. You raise a good question as to what exactly IS human then. IF we are all different then how can we be grouped under the term "human".
Are you stating?: When a person suffers from amnesia, with some memory loss, then they are no longer considered to be human. Because that is a tough sell.
Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
When is a dog not a dog, even sick and without a bark, or a leg or two, people who loved them once continue to do so. So it is with humans. Sometimes it is even hard to throw away a rock. So says dogrock. The consideration of human or not is an emotional decision for humanity, not a scientific one.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"The consideration of human or not is an emotional decision for humanity, not a scientific one."

I agree. Science can help enlighten our values, but it can't tell us what to value.

(And, yes, I disagree with Jacob Bronowski's thesis in his book, 'Science and Human Values.')

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Ofcourse mentally retarded people should be considered human. Just because there is a disparity between their mind and their bodies, (i.e. the cause of their retardation) does not mean that every other aspect of them is not human. I once knew a man in Zimbabwe, who appeared very retarded. He was badly squint, badly pigeon toed and his hands back to front. But mentally he was quite sound, yet everyone thought he was retarded. He even practised as a journeyman in mechanics and could diagnose problems better than normal people. One must not forget the human soul. Remember that blind lady, what was her name again, not Marie Curie emmmmm that deaf dumb and blind lady emmmmm, the one that used to clap her teacher. You know the one they made a film about emmmmmm Enid Blyton no Helen Keller, that's it. She could describe a country scene yet she was totally deaf, dumb and blind. So ofcourse we who know how she was able to do so, know that her mind escaped from her body because of her intense desire to see, hear and speak. Because the soul which contains the mind is not impaired she was able to discern all that she could not see physically. So her MIND was not retarded as many people thought in her early years.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
How did we evolve to the point where people survive such a long time after their usefulness is finished,(their ability to procreate and pass on their genetic information)? Surely it makes sense that early humans would have been more 'fit' for survival if people died when they slowed down and couldn't contribute, but were just another mouth to feed - especially if resources became scarce.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Sorry,

Off topic a little there.

Blacknad.

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 184
Precisely what I am trying to say, there is more to a human than the physical shell. Our physical existence is only a small part of our evolution, there is the spiritual element. This will one day be realised by everyone. many so called retarded people can be credited with wonders and inventions. Remember Ford who only went to standard six, what about Edison and the others.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
"The consideration of human or not is an emotional decision for humanity, not a scientific one." - Dogrock

Please Explicate. Are you talking about a philosophical, sociological or theological definition?

Science DOES define human: ~ Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
Scientific classification:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Binomial name
Homo sapiens
Linnaeus, 1758
Subspecies
Homo sapiens idaltu (extinct)
Homo sapiens sapiens

In any event... of course there is a scientific consideration for what is human.

Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
I was answering in context. Scientific analysis of what species are has its own grey areas but we do have for-all-practical purposes analysis. So again in context.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally posted by Mung:
Science DOES define human: ~ Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Scientific classification:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
1. Should H. sapiens that are mentally defective be hunted down and destroyed to keep the gene pool free from contamination?
2. Is a H. sapien that doesn't understand math not completely a H. sapien?
3. Would all of the world's problems with global warming, poverty, and crime be solved by eliminating all H. sapiens without a degree in mathematics or one of the hard sciences?
4. Absent a demonstrable objective giftedness, should H. sapiens with an IQ below 70 be sterilized and thereafter wholly supported by Hominidae or euthanized by the State?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
To answer your questions one would have to agree on a common goal or a set of criteria by which to judge whether the answer was in line with the goal.


DA Morgan
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
There are so many causes of mental retardation, from genetics (Down's Syndrome has its counterparts with other chromosomes as well) to accidents at birth to problems with anaesthesia during "routine" operations like tonsillectomies. It hardly seems logical to sterilize people who have chromosome anomalies, as they are for the most part unable to reproduce because of the genetic problems they have. What can we say to those whose genes are normal who have simply suffered accidents that damamged their brains? I'm not talking about the Terry Schiavo's of the world, I'm talking about the kid down the block with brain damage from an accident. Sterilizing him or her is hardly going to prevent the same accident from happening to another child, and who knows, they might give rise to the next Einstein or Frank Lloyd Wright or a genius who can bring about world peace? Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible. Sterilizing people who have accidents that left them with brain damage is kind of like fighting for peace, it's counterintuitive. Save it for people who are genetically impaired whose ancestors were dumb as rocks.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Simply put ... in an amoral world we would sterilize or euthanize everyone that does not meet some criteria developed by those self-annointed moral authorities such as politicians and priests.

Of course doing so posits that they would be willing, for what amounts to purely financial purposes, to define the end-point of human evolution and progress.

The rest of us, having taken a close look at the Nazi experiment, might decide it is worth living in a world with imperfect people to protect ourselves and our families just as those that love freedom of speech tolerate those with whom we disagree or find obscene.

The cure, as demonstrated by human history, is far worse than the disease.


DA Morgan
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Well said, Dan, well said!

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 127
Dogrock,
I apologize; after examining my post to you it seemed combative. For that I am sorry; that is not what I intended. Further, I was also incorrect. The definition of "human" can be defined through biological terms but it also carries philosophical, religious, moral, etc. vantages. I do not know why I was stuck on the biological. Sorry again ! smile
Sincerely,


"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5