so, defining what makes a human in this sense, there are quite a few options. 1. The Legacy approach. Quite simple, what was our ancestor and our posteriors w

so, defining what makes a human in this sense, there are quite a few options. 1. The Legacy approach. Quite simple, what was our ancestor and our posteriors will be considered human since we are human. It looks simple, but this approach yields many questions in the future. Consider genetic modification, BCI where human consciousness gets be implanted in a robot extending lives to multi-century long, or what if sciences find a way to merge our genes to other creatures to "invent" a specie that will flourish on Mars? Those extreme scenarios are meant to challenge the boundary of this definition. But you could see, anyone with flimsy connection to our current legacy is potentially human in the future. By this view, those dissents like Nemesis are considered legitimate human heir. 2. The Form similarity approach. Let's say we found some life form on one of the planets. If they share our form, our intelligence, we tested them, they got the same chemical formulations, are they human? But the key here is that, as long as we define a perimeter, that perimeter not only works in including alien humans, but also excluding ourselves, if some dissent evolves away from current human form like I explain in the story above. 3. Ending and Beginning approach. The attitude is basically, by some time, we will just have to end the concept of humanity, and call ourselves something else. That we become Martians or whatnot, this humanness is no longer intact. **so what I'm trying to say here is that, A)the name human, B)the concept defining the name, and C)the underlying scenario on what's actually happening can be quite disengaged. What I meant to say with the monkey case is that, if a group of human evolves to become Martians, they would be no longer considered as human, by some definition.