3 ms·
> A human is a human and only humans can be humans, precisely because we cannot create ourselves. Any "living" being that is designed by a human is inherently s
by shrimp_emoji 4y ago
> A human is a human and only humans can be humans, precisely because we cannot create ourselves. Any "living" being that is designed by a human is inherently subhuman (not clones; that is another matter entirely).
You just conceited that we can make ourselves, whether in a womb or an artificial womb.
To me, it's religious delusion to draw a distinction between "human" and "robot"; it's all machinery of different complexity.
- low_tech_love 3y agoYou misunderstand me; there is certainly no religion in my line of thought (I have abandoned religion entirely since 25 years ago). The point is simply philosophical: when will we consider them to be ”complex” or ”advanced” enough to be sentient? Surely not using the Turing test. Who will define where that line is drawn? And why? Every ”being” designed and created by humans will always have a purpose. Humans, on the other hand, have no purpose, we just exist. That is the difference. Humans were created by a natural optimization process that used to be entirely outside of our control. Concepts like for example freedom to choose your mate and reproduce are not religious, yet are philosophically ”sacred” at least in modern western societies. Why? Because we understand that we cannot ”design” ourselves.