There are a multitude of things in this world that do not receive the amount of thought that they might deserve. This doesn’t seem entirely inappropriate, considering that human beings, on the whole, are very busy and are therefore forced to prioritize what does or does not deserve their time. All the same, there are certain labels that are used on a fairly regular basis for which the average person could not explain the meaning. And one such word must surely be Human.
When asked what makes a human being, most people will give you the same, boring, biological definition. Two arms, two legs, a head with a brain in it, the disgusting package. But this is a very rudimentary definition, and will be rendered void the moment that the androids arrive and make their way among the populous. What if, As Phillip K. Dick says in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, the androids are so advanced that they are physically impossible to distinguish from the rest of our human society? Would they, at that point, be considered human beings, even if their goal was to crush humanity under it’s foot? The mind doesn’t even have to stretch that far: the traditional definition of the word human barely applies to society now. The idea of personhood existing in those who are not readily identifiable as people is extremely prominent. There is fervent support for the rights and well-being of animals, which are defended for having consciousness and having the capacity to feel pain. Artificial intelligence grows more and more prominent in our everyday lives with every passing year, and is made to seem more and more human with every new iteration. There was a movie just this year that imagined a world where, unbeknownst to humankind, food was sentient and felt doomed to the demise of being consumed by humans. That is where we are right now. Any conversation, humorous or otherwise, about whether or not our food has humanity is a world that has worn out any literal definition to the word human. Nothing has to even be human: humanity will be projected onto it by other humans.
No, it seems the literal definition as to what constitutes a human being has failed. Could an answer to the human question possibly found in a more figurative manner? Does being human mean having empathy towards fellow lifeforms? That seems to be the answer most people come to at one point or another. But this is not the case. Because even though empathy is endlessly touted as being the crux of human nature, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of humans throughout history for which empathy is virtually nonexistent. Human reptiles of every kind, be they dictators or rapists or murderers or pedophiles or anything of the sore. But the reality is that this lack of empathy is not enough to negate the title of human being. If the father of a rape victim walks into the courtroom and shoots the attacker in the head, ending his life, he is not viewed as innocent of the crime, or at the very least not in the eyes of of the law, because he has killed a human being. Despite the intolerance and disgust held for the most vile of humans, it is the known truth that the vile must be human first.
So what exactly makes a human being? Is there even such a thing as a human being still?
The answer is actually very simple, believe it or not. There is one real, true way for a human to prove that it is a human: by identifying itself as one. If a person shaped mass says that it’s a human, no one has any right to argue.
At first suggestion, this may understandably be seen as absurd. Humanity’s great thinkers have come up with hundreds of longwinded explanations of humanity that involve great statements about society and prejudice and the singularity of the human experience and all sorts of things that sound very smart. But it really isn’t that far-fetched of an idea that something can declare itself human and, in doing so, make it the truth. There are similar ideas that have been brought up over the last few years and are still being brought up to this day.
This is particularly apparent when it comes to the issue of gender, a subject that, bare in mind, had previously had far more specific parameters than the word human ever did. Wind the clocks back a decade and you will find that the idea of transgenderism, while having some proponents, was largely rejected by society. People wouldn’t stand for hearing the idea that someone born a male could consider themselves anything other than a male, or that a female could consider themselves anything other than a female. And while there are still those today that reject this idea, there is now massive support for transgender people that could very easily make it to the point of actually being permitted by law.
Who’s to say this idea couldn’t be applied to personhood? It’s not going to open the gates all that far. It sets the bar high enough that Dogs, cats, lizards, bees, cows, pigs, and the rest of the animals can still be considered non-human; and if one day they do suddenly say “We are humans”, then they will have thoroughly earned the right to be treated as such. It also bars computers until we get to a point when they can declare for themselves; for now, they can only do so when programmed to, at which point they are merely being used as a tool by a human to declare.
This does unfortunately bring up a more questionable aspect of this self-declaration argument: traditionally defined human beings who may not be able to physically say the words “I am a human”. Ultimately, this is not going to be the barrier one might think it would be. As long as it can be communicate the idea at some point, it’s purveyor is a human, whether or not they have to communicate it by non-verbal means (deaf or mute people), learn how to communicate it (babies, the mentally impaired), or have it be proven about them from previous experience (the comatose). There are multiple ways it can be proven.
There is no reason whatsoever to reject anything that chooses to identify itself as a human. It is so puzzling that human has never been a well-defined term, and yet so many people have such strict ideals as to what constitutes a human being. Just like “the problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the ‘problem’ of the disabled person”, the human norm is all that excludes those who would theoretically be considered human beings (Davis, 3). It is completely unnecessary. It is a hoop that should not require jumping through for something as important as being identified as a human.
There’s a reason as to why the methods of detecting the humanoid androids in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? are so faulty and unreliable. The truth of the matter is, a subject’s humanity can not, with any accuracy, be accepted or rejected by an outside source. It can only be determined by it’s own subject. I know that I am a person because I am inside of myself. I know my memories and the names of all of my friends. And while you can tell me that you are inside of yourself, that you know your memories and the names of your friends, I can only take your word for it. You could be relaying someone else’s memories or friends. You could be creating them in your head seconds before they emerge from your lips. You could be my own imagination, bursting from my sub-conscience, rattling off repressed memories of my own and naming people who have been my thoughts had abandoned years prior. I can believe you, but there is ultimately no proof that when you leave the room i’m in, you disappear from existence.
Even in 1968, the fluidity of the standards of a human being was very apparent. Phillip K. Dick saw it when he wrote the final chapter of Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? when the protagonist, Rick Deckard, who formerly saw no issue in eliminating the humanoid replicants that roamed Earth, exhibits a change of heart. He brings his wife what he at first thinks is a real frog, only to find out that it is just an artificial one. However, he decides not to kill it it, conceding that “The electric things have their lives, too.”, and instead keeps the frog (Dick, 240). While he is talking about a toad, not a person, it stands to reason that if Deckard, and by extension the author and/or audience, sees the electric frog as legitimate as the real frog, than he must, by extension, see the android as a legitimate human being.
It could even be theorized that the newcomers to the human identity could very well improve the image of humans altogether. Studies have shown that empathy, to a certain extent, can be effectively taught to students through the use of narrative fiction (Surugue). This could easily be used as a transitional tool of sorts to help instill a sense of decency in the new humans. In fact, it could be easier to teach them than it is currently to teach ourselves, seeing as they have no conflicting views of empathy to interfere with their understanding of the concept, which unfortunately is the case for several traditional humans whose views on empathy may be severely limited, twisted, or otherwise hindered. For example, who would more easily learn about empathy: an android, who has no concept of empathy, or a white supremacist, who may have an incredibly twisted concept of empathy? Most would be inclined to say the android, and there is a very strong reasoning behind that decision.
It’s not a perfect system: there will always be a few cases that fall through the cracks, but that should not be a long term problem. Even though it may not seem like it at times, human beings have a knack when it comes to advocating on behalf of each other. However, for the time being, this seems like a solid basis for further analysis of what constitutes a human and what does not. Human is a word that can mean different things to different people, but in the brave new world we are entering into, a more concrete definition is necessary. Hopefully, the one presented above will be considered suitable, or at least serviceable until someone more qualified can present with a stronger, more fitting definition of the concept. We’re certainly going to need one, and as soon as humanly possible.
Ultimately, the foundation of humanity is comprised of exactly one thing: the desire to be a human. Not necessarily a good human or a successful human, but a human of some sort. It means that their is some deep and intrinsic motivation to be a part of the human community, the human experiment, the human experience or whatever the preferred nomenclature may be. Everyone wants the feel of their soul, to be themselves and think and feel as only they would, and exercise their own free will in ways that other people may not. Everyone wants to be part of the great game of life and be top of the food chain, literally and figuratively. Everyone wants their tangents on crazy subjects like androids or talking food or being a militant communist feminist cyborg woman or whatever it is that appeals to the deepest caves of the psyche. To be a human, one has too be willing and able to stand up and declare their humanity loud enough for the whole world to hear, and so defiantly that there can be no doubt. Humans create themselves.
WORKS CITED:
Surugue, Lea. “Reading Books and Watching Films Makes You Kinder in Real Life.” International Business Times RSS. N.p., 2016. Web.
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?London: Gollancz, 2011. Print.
Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Print.Davis, Lennard J. “Constructing Normalcy.”<https://eng28105fall15.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/constructingnormalcy_davis.pdf>. Web.
