well you don't compare with humans of old, you compare to the current average human

its like uhm

We used to be the same primates as modern monkeys

But they aren't human, even though the same generation 100,000 years ago for example would be the same being

We didn't evolve from monkeys

we share a genetic ancestor with them

thats what i said

we used to be the same primates

the elite have a fantasy of splitting us down different evolutionary paths gradually with all the "soft" eugenics going on indirectly and directly

and modern monkeys used to be that same one

the elite aren't smart enough for that

like straight up Eloi/Morlocks from the Time Machine status .... more or less LOL

I wish, then atleast they'd have a plan

That's part of why I think it's not a good idea to create concrete definitions of what is human and what is not. Dehumanization is a very dangerous thing.

Also I think it's just not really possible to do with the way biology works

can an AI be human?

Depends on whether you're defining humanity by body/mind/spirit

"not a good idea to create concrete definitions" you dont think that ABSOLUTELY though right?

cuz i mean.... i love eating avocados

Personally I'd say no, but if they are of human intelligence then I'd say they deserve to be treated as humans

yes you treat them as equals, but you don't consider them human, so you do have a definition of what defines a human

Well yeah I'd be willing to say something isn't a human, but to make an exact definition of 'this is a human anything that differs is not human' is where I think it gets fuzzy and dangerous

i would say no to AI .... just like why corporations arent people ....... they would be "super" humans of a literall different physical class of humans/people

humans arent immortal

a dog isnt human, an ant isnt human

Human is a type of species

@Schedrevka yeah, i agree with all that too

and since we don't have a good concept of an "equal" species, we level everything to human

Hence "acting humane" etc

"humanists"

@Dr.Wol also true too tho

So i think what we 3 have here, is a different concept cuz I believe we have a mixture of "being human" and "having humanity"

why the NAP cannot be applied to animals in the same way it will be (and should be) applied to humans universally by the force of common law, natural law (such as in the case of replacing the social contract with the NAP)

I think there's a difference in what is biologically human, and something 'having humanity'

exactly, so do i

and because animals dont follow the NAP either amongst themselves .... so we are not exactly going to make a rapey dolphin prison for all those rapey dolphins and other animals

but I wouldn't want to give exact definitions on either since people will use those labels to say 'this person lacks it' to justify doing awful things to them

"being human" is just the state of biological to me, hence i place it under identified by genetics

but YOU can personally apply the NAP to animals in yoru own life, just the point is that you cannot impose it on someone else like the NAP can be potentially

I would agree with you Schedrevka, but the world shows us that people don't need a reason to hate another "This person is black colored, so he's lesser"

like me, im vegetarian for the most part... but NOT going to impose it on others .... especially not go full militant vegan to liberate all the farm animals

no go full vegan anyways LOL .... maybe for a few weeks here and there to experiment, i might try

butter is good for you tho