What does it mean to be human?

[Adrift_Quasar]

Just wanted to see what people think...Cause I haven't the slightest clue.

[Kosh]

You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The number of chromosomes is the definition of a species but im not sure if this number includes apes...maybe someone else knows.

[Shade]

Apparently it is to err.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Shade
Apparently it is to err.

What do you mean?

[Shade]

Kosh, without wishing to be rude you are a 22 year old living in England.

Surely you have heard 'To err is human; to repent, divine; to persist, devilish.'

If not please go immediately to a library or good book shop tomorrow morning and extract a book of quotes by Benjamin Franklin. ;)

[quartermaster]

Homo Sapiens Sapiens
great ape
terestrial biological entity
self aware
highest of the great apes

[Adrift_Quasar]

Smart ass...

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Shade
Kosh, without wishing to be rude you are a 22 year old living in England.

Surely you have heard 'To err is human; to repent, divine; to persist, devilish.'

No, Ive never heard that.

But thats like saying a Polo is a mint so a mint is a Polo, which is false logic.

[nzric]

To be human is to be 2% not gorilla. DNA rocks.

[Shade]

No Kosh its not.

In any case, my original comment was flippant.

However, still go and get that book. You might learn something from it (in all seriousness).

[Yukimushu]

These are all man made conceptions of themselves though :)

Humans are members of the animal kingdom... agree with it or not.

[Shade]

Humans are members of the animal kingdom... agree with it or not.

Well, I guess essentially we are animals. We fit the Oxford Dictionary description of animals (although they have a footnote saying that the term 'animal' is usually used to describe living things that move other than man).

And on an elemental level we are animal (although there is an argument for partly mineral as well I guess, and I have known some people whom I am sure were mainly vegetable) :D

[quartermaster]

"to be human is to be 2% not gorilla"

...and 50% banana

[Yukimushu]

Of course were animals :) Us humans can come up with "were ontop of the food chain" etc but we're still a member of the animal kingdom.

The Oxford Dictionary is merely a book of words compiled of man made words that define. Especially the words which define themselves...

Its like the Frankenstien theory i once read; (the robert de niro one is best example).

To the monster (de niro) he wanted to be human, he wanted to be accepted and considered himself a nice person who obviously had nice intentions.


But, on the other hand to the humans, he was a monster, a freak and intent on causing harm to others.

Which one is right? you've got two views... one of himself, and one from someone else... Who decides which is the correct view? Who is even fit to decide which view is the correct one?

It's like an author reviewing his own book, it shouldn't be done. Just like us humans shouldn't be able to justify our existance and our difference from the animal kingdom simple because in comparison, we are not needed on this planet... there is no reason for us humans to exist on this planet.

It's all a human man made conception of himself, against a force which has been around ALOT longer than himself.


Heehehe, just an idea if anyone understands :)

[Shade]

It's like an author reviewing his own book, it shouldn't be done. Just like us humans shouldn't be able to justify our existance and our difference from the animal kingdom simple because in comparison, we are not needed on this planet... there is no reason for us humans to exist on this planet.

Thing is we DO exist though, regardless of whether we are needed or not (not needed for what by the way?).

And we 'review our own book' because we can. It is really as simple as that.

The Oxford Dictionary is merely a book of words compiled of man made words that define. Especially the words which define themselves...

Yes you are right it is. That's why it is so useful.

[Yukimushu]

And thats why we will never be able to answer this question. Because were talking about a force which is bigger than us as humans could ever imagine & conceive, and has been around for longer than us :)

Strange how everything comes down to the meaning of life question :) Which i believe will never be answered... but it's definatly more fun to think about the odds and ends of it all than thinkin about what im going to be doing tomorrow :)

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Yukimushu
we are not needed on this planet... there is no reason for us humans to exist on this planet.



Absolute bollox...we exist because our DNA says so, just like every other animal, plant or bacteria.

I hate this tree hugging-hippy-guilty-for-being-human crap. What is so unnatural about humans??????????? ?????? ?

well?

nothing...we are the result of nature, we are animals. no better no worse. There is no purpose, life is only there to perpetuate life.

A cow would eat you and all your family and not think about it twice (if it werent a vegitarian) and it would probably have a hard time understanding the guilt that humans have over existing.

Im sick of it...we are what we are.

[quartermaster]

well said kosh, very well said

[hwardo]

But isn't our consciousness the thing that makes us all hippied out, tree hugging, and guilty?

And here is a doozy for you-- does our consciousness not only seperate us from the rest of the animals, but actually grant us exemption from the laws of ecology? Surely our minds are so powerful that we have the power to change nature?

The converse of this is what Kosh says-- we are indeed just animals, and we are subject to the laws of nature. If this is the case, we have quite a bit of worrying to do, because we are quickly plummenting towards unsustainability according to the laws of ecology.

Human exemptionalism v. Human as animal-- a classic debate. I'll be interested to see what y'all think.

[quartermaster]

as an animal, we seem to enjoy buggering up the world we live in for profffit and personal gain. so you might say that our just being another mindless animal is the reason we are exempt from the rules. the opposite is also true so clearly it's just a matter of oppinion.
thats my take

[Kwajman]

I think it means to be self-aware.

[Terry Matthes]

Everyone and everything has it's role. All animals play a role in nature a niche if you will. The only problem with humas is we have grown so powerful as a race that now we can define our own niche and it's not always in the best intrest of nature.

[Adam]

I've always wondered if God even meant for us to come down from the trees. We've certainly made a bit of a mess since we did.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by hwardo
exemption from the laws of ecology?

We are the result of ecology, given time any species could evolve to a similar state. By your logic, the more evolved a species gets, the more 'unecological' it gets. But again, we are the result of nature, anything which seperates us from nature is arbitrary.

At what point in evolution does a species cease to be 'natural'?

[shotokanwarrior]

To be human is to destroy the environment, destroy other organisms, destroy nature's equilibrium, destroy everything, destroy one's own kind, destroy oneself inadvertently in the process....and basically not to give a crap what damage you do to the world as long as you have everything you want.

[Capt Ann]

I think humans are really vegetables....that's why we're called "human beans"

[hwardo]

Not my logic, Kosh. Just pointing out the debate.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by shotokanwarrior
To be human is to destroy the environment,

All living things exist at the cost of other living things.