"Overstressedstudentsaywhat?"
Dec. 9th, 2002 10:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urbanamazon... Okay, I just wrote an English 101E final in which I compared the plot of Great Expectations to Murphy's Law.
... I did WHAT?
College = weirding out my brain. I shall forever thank Mr. Zeglen for teaching me the art of on-the-spot BS-ing in Social Studies 30.
And for anyone who might be interested, I'm posting my Media in Art essay philosophizing about what constitutes as being human...
"What is Human?"
By Sarah Hilliard.
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's a duck"
-Common phrase
In the futuristic film Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, a man named Deckard pursues a quartet of escaped criminals known as Replicants, which are actually robots that look and act human. He has been hired to kill them, as the Replicants are perceived as a threat to human society, though it is not clearly explained quite why. True, they are physically stronger and smarter than 'normal' human beings, but that does not necessarily deem them a superior being or a threat. The only way to determine their true alignment is through a series of thought-provoking questions and careful examination of their reactions, but their programmed skills of deception are so advanced that two Replicants, a woman named Rachel and Deckard himself, do not even know that they are not human until they are told, and even then they try to deny it. The Replicants express fear, pain, anxiety, affection, sorrow, and rage. They learn, they deceive, and they fear death. They appreciate beauty, they dream, they have senses of humor and imagination. Theoretically, they are human, but because they cannot be created in today's society, they are not real. They are fictional characters in an imaginary situation, portrayed by humans, not robots. However, the question of what qualifies as human is a very real one, debated back and forth by authors, filmmakers, scientists, and Normal Joes alike.
For those who seek to consult a dictionary to determine the 'true' definition of human, we must realize that we have trapped ourselves within the definition:
Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE. Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature (Merriam-Webster Online, Merriam-Webster, 2002)
Dictionaries are written by mankind, therefore trapping ourselves within a single perception of what 'human' might be. An interesting paradox; if we trap ourselves within a single concept, we are displaying a particularly popular human trait of imperfect logic. A much more common answer to the question might lie within the wonder that is conscious thought. Human beings seem to be the only creatures on the planet that have mastered intelligence over instinct, but personality has its flaws. We are bound to our reputations and our perception of others. We have lies, masks, and roles that we must fulfill, and we become lost in ourselves without understanding what we are. Few people have actually taken the time to look within themselves and give committed thought to what makes human 'human', but those who do can be met with criticism and opposition because someone else might think that they are wrong. Defining what makes you human is a very personal experience, so there may be several billion versions floating around the globe at any possible moment.
One of the most recent and prominent spins on the concept of being human is the debate over human cloning. Despite the unlimited potential in the medical field, the procedure has seen serious flak from human rights and religious groups, calling it unnatural and against the 'will of God'. Cloning creates a being identical to the original subject by injecting genetic material into the egg as it is still developing. Protesters say that cloning is against 'nature's plan', and that the creations, being identical to their predecessor and not born 'normally', are not human. In a more scientific point of view, this is not true.
Scientifically, a clone would have the genetic makeup and DNA of Homo sapiens; they could eat, grow, age, learn, and feel emotions, so they would qualify as human under all definitions of 'human' produced by dictionaries. They relate to humans, they consist of humans, they have human for and attributes, and they are susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature. One would not be able to determine a clone as being 'not human' at a glance, or even in deep conversation or examination. For those who say that it is unnatural for two identical beings to exist and that cloning would cheapen the individuality of human life, logic again proves them wrong. It is impossible to create two identical beings especially in the cloning process used today. Cloning requires a pre-existing donor, and it is impossible to completely re-create the circumstances in which the donor has matured. People are shaped by their experiences, their personalities molded through adaptations and particular encounters that are unique to their point of view alone. Even if two beings were genetically identical, there is no way that they could be completely identical. Even though science has created many miracles in the areas of life and birth, it is still impossible to create something 'nonhuman' from a 'human', or master the wheel of fortune that is 'life' itself. Life produces character; we cannot recreate it, we can only try to give it.
In a dictionary, the term 'human' is considered a root word for several terms, most notably 'humanity', which is "the quality or state of being humane", "the quality or state of being human", or "human attributes or qualities". Going further, 'humane' is defined as "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals". When paired together, these definitions are a puzzle. Not all 'humans' are 'humane'. Besides our achievements regarding technology, society, and imagination, Homo sapiens is also the only species to invent murder, suicide, deceit, and hate. We are considered the deadliest animal in existence, and we slaughter over a hundred thousand of our own kind each year. Not being satisfied with that, we kill thousands upon thousands of animals for profit, pleasure, and leisure, giving us claim as the inventors of unnatural extinction and genocide. Ironically, such behavior is dubbed 'inhuman'. One might wonder is Homo sapiens are truly 'human' at all, if we can have no humanity within ourselves.
Oddly enough, as Homo sapiens become paradoxes within themselves, other beings seem to exhibit signs of humanity without being 'human' at all. Animals such as dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, and canines have shown signs of intelligence and personality. They can communicate through signs and behaviors and can show easily recognizable emotions such as happiness, sorrow, fear, and sympathy. By a dictionary, they qualify as 'human' under definitions 3a and 3b. There are even people that have formed 'animal rights' groups, protesting cruel treatment of animals killed for meat and skins, petitioning for meat farms that kill the animals 'humanely'. An interesting paradox.
Although dictionaries have very qualified and multi-faceted definitions of what it is to be human, we are all of these things and none. If one wants to boil down humanity to the most basic of all qualifications, a single word can qualify: ambition. Humans want things. They are not driven by the black and white realm of need and can choose their desires. Humans wanted to make travel easier, so they invented the wheel. They wanted a 'civilized' lifestyle, so they built massive cities and created marvels like refrigeration and plumbing. They created hundreds of languages and other forms of communication just so they could show and tell others what they wanted. Even if a person shuns all forms of indulgence and claims that they want nothing, they are lying, though they may not know it. They want to shun the indulgence. They want the lifestyle that they choose. Animals do not want. They are driven by instinct and need. Through domestication and human intervention into their natural lifestyle, they may begin to show more recognizable signs of 'humanity'. Humans are slaves to their intelligence and they cannot mentally de-evolve to where they began in order to shed the load. Conscious thought is our greatest achievement and our indestructible bane.
If the debate over cloning is ever resolved, there will still be several more. Science has also made advances in the realms of electronics within the last fifty years, and they theory of artificial intelligence comes to mind. A growing trend in science fiction films is to try and explore the idea of 'learning computers' and 'artificial humans'. While it is true that a computer can be programmed for specific reactions and can learn from its mistakes and the mistakes of its users (like the auto-spellchecker in Microsoft Word Processor programs), a computer will never be able to completely pass as 'human'. The reason is simple; human beings are flawed. We lack true logic and are ruled by our emotions and preferences. Computers live in and existence of formulas and equations, where everything must be perfect in order for things to work. People are not like that. We approximate, we procrastinate, we guess, and we summarize. With the technology we have today, artificial intelligence can never be completely achieved. In the fictional future of Blade Runner, however, the Replicant technology is much more sophisticated and the lines between human and Replicant blur to the point of having to question one's own identity. We have to know who we are in order to know what and why we are.
"Who are you? No, I mean it. Who are you? Don't give me your name, your position, your rank, or some other useless piece of information. Those aren't yours. They are made up by someone who isn't you. Someone else's statistics, not yours. I mean, look at your name. Dose a simple combination of vowels and consonants really determine who you are? Are you nothing but a title? Who are you? No, describing what you look like, that doesn't help, either. So what is you're short, tall, fat, thin, pale, dark, or polka-dotted? You can cut your hair, dye it, paint your skin, change your weight, break your own bones, but does that really make up who you are? All you are is a name that matches a picture? Are you that damn shallow of yourself? Who are you? Don't you know yet? Think about it, okay? If someone took away your body, your voice, would you retain any semblance of self? Would it change the way you laugh at a joke from your best friend, the way you cry when something shatters your heart, or makes it explode? Would it make you turn your back on the people you love, you hate, you feel you need in order to survive? Would you suddenly like purple instead of blue, turn from atheist to Buddhist? Do you know what I'm saying? Can you understand me? Who are you? Do you even understand what I'm asking? I don't need to know what you are, the things that you think make you. I need to know the things that are you. Now do you know? Let's try this again. Who are you? Ah, I thought it was you. I knew it was you! Now comes the hard part. Who am I?"
-"Depth Perception"
Sarah Hilliard
Works Cited
Blade Runner [Director's Cut]. Dir. Ridley Scott. Videocassette. 1982.
Merriam-Webster OnLine. Hp. 2002 [copyright]. Online. Available:
< http://www.m-w.com/home.htm>. 6 December 2002.
... I did WHAT?
College = weirding out my brain. I shall forever thank Mr. Zeglen for teaching me the art of on-the-spot BS-ing in Social Studies 30.
And for anyone who might be interested, I'm posting my Media in Art essay philosophizing about what constitutes as being human...
"What is Human?"
By Sarah Hilliard.
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it's a duck"
-Common phrase
In the futuristic film Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, a man named Deckard pursues a quartet of escaped criminals known as Replicants, which are actually robots that look and act human. He has been hired to kill them, as the Replicants are perceived as a threat to human society, though it is not clearly explained quite why. True, they are physically stronger and smarter than 'normal' human beings, but that does not necessarily deem them a superior being or a threat. The only way to determine their true alignment is through a series of thought-provoking questions and careful examination of their reactions, but their programmed skills of deception are so advanced that two Replicants, a woman named Rachel and Deckard himself, do not even know that they are not human until they are told, and even then they try to deny it. The Replicants express fear, pain, anxiety, affection, sorrow, and rage. They learn, they deceive, and they fear death. They appreciate beauty, they dream, they have senses of humor and imagination. Theoretically, they are human, but because they cannot be created in today's society, they are not real. They are fictional characters in an imaginary situation, portrayed by humans, not robots. However, the question of what qualifies as human is a very real one, debated back and forth by authors, filmmakers, scientists, and Normal Joes alike.
For those who seek to consult a dictionary to determine the 'true' definition of human, we must realize that we have trapped ourselves within the definition:
Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE. Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature (Merriam-Webster Online, Merriam-Webster, 2002)
Dictionaries are written by mankind, therefore trapping ourselves within a single perception of what 'human' might be. An interesting paradox; if we trap ourselves within a single concept, we are displaying a particularly popular human trait of imperfect logic. A much more common answer to the question might lie within the wonder that is conscious thought. Human beings seem to be the only creatures on the planet that have mastered intelligence over instinct, but personality has its flaws. We are bound to our reputations and our perception of others. We have lies, masks, and roles that we must fulfill, and we become lost in ourselves without understanding what we are. Few people have actually taken the time to look within themselves and give committed thought to what makes human 'human', but those who do can be met with criticism and opposition because someone else might think that they are wrong. Defining what makes you human is a very personal experience, so there may be several billion versions floating around the globe at any possible moment.
One of the most recent and prominent spins on the concept of being human is the debate over human cloning. Despite the unlimited potential in the medical field, the procedure has seen serious flak from human rights and religious groups, calling it unnatural and against the 'will of God'. Cloning creates a being identical to the original subject by injecting genetic material into the egg as it is still developing. Protesters say that cloning is against 'nature's plan', and that the creations, being identical to their predecessor and not born 'normally', are not human. In a more scientific point of view, this is not true.
Scientifically, a clone would have the genetic makeup and DNA of Homo sapiens; they could eat, grow, age, learn, and feel emotions, so they would qualify as human under all definitions of 'human' produced by dictionaries. They relate to humans, they consist of humans, they have human for and attributes, and they are susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature. One would not be able to determine a clone as being 'not human' at a glance, or even in deep conversation or examination. For those who say that it is unnatural for two identical beings to exist and that cloning would cheapen the individuality of human life, logic again proves them wrong. It is impossible to create two identical beings especially in the cloning process used today. Cloning requires a pre-existing donor, and it is impossible to completely re-create the circumstances in which the donor has matured. People are shaped by their experiences, their personalities molded through adaptations and particular encounters that are unique to their point of view alone. Even if two beings were genetically identical, there is no way that they could be completely identical. Even though science has created many miracles in the areas of life and birth, it is still impossible to create something 'nonhuman' from a 'human', or master the wheel of fortune that is 'life' itself. Life produces character; we cannot recreate it, we can only try to give it.
In a dictionary, the term 'human' is considered a root word for several terms, most notably 'humanity', which is "the quality or state of being humane", "the quality or state of being human", or "human attributes or qualities". Going further, 'humane' is defined as "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals". When paired together, these definitions are a puzzle. Not all 'humans' are 'humane'. Besides our achievements regarding technology, society, and imagination, Homo sapiens is also the only species to invent murder, suicide, deceit, and hate. We are considered the deadliest animal in existence, and we slaughter over a hundred thousand of our own kind each year. Not being satisfied with that, we kill thousands upon thousands of animals for profit, pleasure, and leisure, giving us claim as the inventors of unnatural extinction and genocide. Ironically, such behavior is dubbed 'inhuman'. One might wonder is Homo sapiens are truly 'human' at all, if we can have no humanity within ourselves.
Oddly enough, as Homo sapiens become paradoxes within themselves, other beings seem to exhibit signs of humanity without being 'human' at all. Animals such as dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, and canines have shown signs of intelligence and personality. They can communicate through signs and behaviors and can show easily recognizable emotions such as happiness, sorrow, fear, and sympathy. By a dictionary, they qualify as 'human' under definitions 3a and 3b. There are even people that have formed 'animal rights' groups, protesting cruel treatment of animals killed for meat and skins, petitioning for meat farms that kill the animals 'humanely'. An interesting paradox.
Although dictionaries have very qualified and multi-faceted definitions of what it is to be human, we are all of these things and none. If one wants to boil down humanity to the most basic of all qualifications, a single word can qualify: ambition. Humans want things. They are not driven by the black and white realm of need and can choose their desires. Humans wanted to make travel easier, so they invented the wheel. They wanted a 'civilized' lifestyle, so they built massive cities and created marvels like refrigeration and plumbing. They created hundreds of languages and other forms of communication just so they could show and tell others what they wanted. Even if a person shuns all forms of indulgence and claims that they want nothing, they are lying, though they may not know it. They want to shun the indulgence. They want the lifestyle that they choose. Animals do not want. They are driven by instinct and need. Through domestication and human intervention into their natural lifestyle, they may begin to show more recognizable signs of 'humanity'. Humans are slaves to their intelligence and they cannot mentally de-evolve to where they began in order to shed the load. Conscious thought is our greatest achievement and our indestructible bane.
If the debate over cloning is ever resolved, there will still be several more. Science has also made advances in the realms of electronics within the last fifty years, and they theory of artificial intelligence comes to mind. A growing trend in science fiction films is to try and explore the idea of 'learning computers' and 'artificial humans'. While it is true that a computer can be programmed for specific reactions and can learn from its mistakes and the mistakes of its users (like the auto-spellchecker in Microsoft Word Processor programs), a computer will never be able to completely pass as 'human'. The reason is simple; human beings are flawed. We lack true logic and are ruled by our emotions and preferences. Computers live in and existence of formulas and equations, where everything must be perfect in order for things to work. People are not like that. We approximate, we procrastinate, we guess, and we summarize. With the technology we have today, artificial intelligence can never be completely achieved. In the fictional future of Blade Runner, however, the Replicant technology is much more sophisticated and the lines between human and Replicant blur to the point of having to question one's own identity. We have to know who we are in order to know what and why we are.
"Who are you? No, I mean it. Who are you? Don't give me your name, your position, your rank, or some other useless piece of information. Those aren't yours. They are made up by someone who isn't you. Someone else's statistics, not yours. I mean, look at your name. Dose a simple combination of vowels and consonants really determine who you are? Are you nothing but a title? Who are you? No, describing what you look like, that doesn't help, either. So what is you're short, tall, fat, thin, pale, dark, or polka-dotted? You can cut your hair, dye it, paint your skin, change your weight, break your own bones, but does that really make up who you are? All you are is a name that matches a picture? Are you that damn shallow of yourself? Who are you? Don't you know yet? Think about it, okay? If someone took away your body, your voice, would you retain any semblance of self? Would it change the way you laugh at a joke from your best friend, the way you cry when something shatters your heart, or makes it explode? Would it make you turn your back on the people you love, you hate, you feel you need in order to survive? Would you suddenly like purple instead of blue, turn from atheist to Buddhist? Do you know what I'm saying? Can you understand me? Who are you? Do you even understand what I'm asking? I don't need to know what you are, the things that you think make you. I need to know the things that are you. Now do you know? Let's try this again. Who are you? Ah, I thought it was you. I knew it was you! Now comes the hard part. Who am I?"
-"Depth Perception"
Sarah Hilliard
Works Cited
Blade Runner [Director's Cut]. Dir. Ridley Scott. Videocassette. 1982.
Merriam-Webster OnLine. Hp. 2002 [copyright]. Online. Available:
< http://www.m-w.com/home.htm>. 6 December 2002.
