4 ms·
Depends on the definition, as you predicted. In general I agree with Dawkins that mono definitions don't even make sense here. [1] There never was an Australop
by Strom 12y ago
Depends on the definition, as you predicted. In general I agree with Dawkins that mono definitions don't even make sense here. [1]
There never was an Australopithecus mother who gave birth to a Homo child, for every child ever born belonged to the same species as its mother.
However to give some rough idea, then in the context of this space exploration discussion, when I say "Human" I mean everything starting from the first person who learned how to cook [2], all the way to potential future versions where there's only a brain within a cyborg body.
[1] http://edge.org/response-detail/25366 http://edge.org/response-detail/25366
[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain http://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_...
- dagw 12y agoWhile I agree with Dawkins as such on his point, I can also imagine a future in which both "mother" and "born" become a bit of an anachronism. In that future I wouldn't be overly comfortable simply slapping the label "human" on everything.