• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What Is 'Human'?

Dingo667

Dingo667

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,812
Could I ask a question at this point?
I really do not want to offend anyone [anyway why would it be offensive in the first place?] But what I always wanted to know is: Are Downs syndrom people strictly speaking humans?If we go by their amount of chromosomes - no. If we go by made up ethics - yes.
Maybe they are something better?
If they are classed as humand, why are not chimpanzees ?[Note - I am NOT comparing Downs people with chimps, just using them for the sake of the argument]*


*Jesus in this PC world you can't just ask a question outright...always have to put "clauses" in. The actual question is written in italics.
 
Dingo667 said:
Could I ask a question at this point?
I really do not want to offend anyone [anyway why would it be offensive in the first place?]
Click to expand...

Well, it could be offensive to anyone who has/had a loved one who has Downs Syndrome. Unfortunately, my niece (Rhiannon) died as a baby but I would never have considered her not to be human just because she had an extra chromosome.

There's plenty of 'normal'-looking people (I mean those who have no outward-looking differences) who quite blithely live in society and who may have chromosomal differences which they don't know about.


But what I always wanted to know is: Are Downs syndrom people strictly speaking humans?If we go by their amount of chromosomes - no. If we go by made up ethics - yes.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are human.

Maybe they are something better?
Click to expand...

I'd hazard a guess that if you asked a person who has Downs this question, they'd probably say yes ;)

*Jesus in this PC world you can't just ask a question outright...always have to put "clauses" in. The actual question is written in italics.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with PC. It's about realising that sometimes asking questions, say like the above, can cause hurt to people.

If anyone strongly reacts to it then you have to realise that the question can be taken as hurtful, no matter how well-intended it was meant to be. Especially when you consider the historical background to how people with Downs Syndrome were once treated by the scientific and medical professions.

Perhaps other people may have a different view on the subject but I hope that goes someway to answering your question from a personal perspective anyway.
 
Or, indeed, hurtful to those who have Downs. Dingo, what do you think Downs is? something that stops you taking part in a board like this? :shock:

I'm sure my auntie, who taught in inner city London for decades ending as depute head before retiring to Tilney Fen End, would have had her own definitions about "human".

Whatever they were I doubt she would have excluded herself and I believe she was sufficiently humane not to cast doubt on your own qualifications :rofl:

As we can all breed with each other an interesting thought to have even a doubt about it.

Kath
 
TheQuixote said:
Well, it could be offensive to anyone who has/had a loved one who has Downs Syndrome. Unfortunately, my niece (Rhiannon) died as a baby but I would never have considered her not to be human just because she had an extra chromosome.
Click to expand...
My sister Rhiannon is seven and has Downs; my Mum said once in a throwaway moment, " I wish I'd called her Ann or Mo or something so she can spell it!" Don't be fooled by the 'placid and loving' stereotype trotted out for Downs people; my mother has the patience of a bloody saint!!
 
Can we just point out that there's a world of difference between people reacting angrily to crassness and stupidity, and "political correctness"?
 
Yup, I agree. Although in some cases the world has gone ‘PC crazy’; I’ve noticed that the backlash against it is being used an excuse for rudeness and ignorance.
 
Dingo667 said:
Could I ask a question at this point?
I really do not want to offend anyone [anyway why would it be offensive in the first place?] But what I always wanted to know is: Are Downs syndrom people strictly speaking humans?If we go by their amount of chromosomes - no. If we go by made up ethics - yes.
Maybe they are something better?
If they are classed as humand, why are not chimpanzees ?[Note - I am NOT comparing Downs people with chimps, just using them for the sake of the argument]*


*Jesus in this PC world you can't just ask a question outright...always have to put "clauses" in. The actual question is written in italics.
Click to expand...

You might as well be asking if Africans or Asians are human, strctly speaking. Your question is not only grossly offensive, but it demonstrates the incredible depth of your ignorance.
 
hedgewizard1 said:
Dingo667 said:
Could I ask a question at this point?
I really do not want to offend anyone [anyway why would it be offensive in the first place?] But what I always wanted to know is: Are Downs syndrom people strictly speaking humans?If we go by their amount of chromosomes - no. If we go by made up ethics - yes.
Maybe they are something better?
If they are classed as humand, why are not chimpanzees ?[Note - I am NOT comparing Downs people with chimps, just using them for the sake of the argument]*


*Jesus in this PC world you can't just ask a question outright...always have to put "clauses" in. The actual question is written in italics.
Click to expand...

You might as well be asking if Africans or Asians are human, strctly speaking. Your question is not only grossly offensive, but it demonstrates the incredible depth of your ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think it's a reasonable question from Dingo's viewpoint. The racialization of your argument is wrong in my opinion. And in any case, her "ignorance" has given her cause to be curious enough to ask a question in order to satisfy her curiosity. I don't see how could someone be so offended by her post, specially since she clarified from the start that she had no intention of being offensive.

Anyway, she deserves an aswer to her question first, and then maybe add some constructive criticism to it, but people should never limit curiosity and search of knowledge based on what's appropiate or "PC". If such was the case, we would still hold the view of a Ptolomeic universe.

And, sorry, I don't want to stir things up. I just wanted to voice my opinion.
 
Humans are not defined by how many chromosomes they have. So a person with an extra chromosome is just that: a person with an extra chromosome.

Humans have two arms, two legs, one nose and so on. Do we think that a person is no longer human if they are unfortunate enough to lose one of these? Of course not.

What if they are born with the wrong number of limbs? Are they still human? Of course they are.

There have been, and still are perhaps, certain groups in society who would disagree. I'm sure Dingo wasn't hoping to be aligned with them.
 
Um, just saying that you don't want to offend doesn't automatically make anything you say inoffensive.

A child is born of a human couple. It can only be human, you twits. Come on, this is basic biology. Offspring can't be any species other than the parents. I can't believe that this has to be explained.

Dingo, I hope this answers your question. I also hope that you realize how incredibly stupid it was to ask.


Onix, "racialization" is BS. There are obvious genetic differences between African, Asians, and Europeans. To question whether someone is human strictly on the basis of genetic differences is ignorant. Of course, I realize that any reference to race makes some people very uncomfortable.

Therefore, asking if somone with Down's is human is like asking if someone with Cystic Fibrosis or PKU is human.

Either way, it's pretty damned stupid.
 
If two individuals of whatever type (fish fowl or fungus) can breed successfully then they are mebers of the same species.

People with Down's syndrome can have children with non-Down's, therefore they are the same species therefore people with DS are human.

In couples where both have DS offspring will not necessarily have DS, it does not 'breed true' therefore it is not a defining taxonomic charecteristic therfore it cannot be used for classification and again people with DS do not constitute a separate species therefore again they are human.

Chromosomal differences are irrelevant in this case.

Now, back to the thread?

Edit: Missed this bit-

If they are classed as humand, why are not chimpanzees ?
Click to expand...

Because no matter how many times you fuck a chimpanzee, there aren't going to be any kids. Feel free any time you want to conduct a practical experiment if you wish to prove me wrong, however. I'm always willing to be corrected.
 
misterwibble said:
If two individuals of whatever type (fish fowl or fungus) can breed successfully then they are mebers of the same species.
Click to expand...
What about intergeneric hybrids?
Different species, different genus, but resulting in offspring.
More common in plants than animal life though.
Now I have booted it more thoroughly OT I will get my coat. :roll:
 
Oops yeah, good point.

I should have said viable offspring, ie non sterile.

Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but mules are all sterile.

The definition of species I gave is the one considered most suitable for vertebrates, and can only apply to creatures using sexual reproduction.
 
Not All!

A fertile mule and hinny in China.

Rong R, Chandley AC, Song J, McBeath S, Tan PP, Bai Q, Speed RM.

Institute of Genetics, Academia Sinica, Beijing.

Anecdotal reports of fertility in female mules (jack donkey x mare) and hinnies (stallion x jenny donkey) have appeared in the literature over the years, but scientists have generally regarded them with scepticism. The fact that some of these hybrids can come into estrous and ovulate makes fertility conceivable, given that opportunity for mating arises. In China, where mules are bred extensively for work on the farms, a fertile female mule and a fertile female hinny have now been verified by chromosomal investigation. Each had mated with a donkey and produced a filly foal. The foals show unique hybrid karyotypes different from the mule's or hinny's and different from each other's. The studies make it clear that mule and hinny fertility, at least for the female hybrid, is a real possibility.
Click to expand...
 
markbellis said:
Not All!
Click to expand...
Ha ha!
Which raises another OT question:

How does an exception prove a rule? :?

Sounds daft to me!
 
Because prove meant "test" until a hundred or so years ago (the sense still exists in "proving ground".) It's only come to mean "confirm" relatively recently.
 
hedgewizard1 said:
Um, just saying that you don't want to offend doesn't automatically make anything you say inoffensive.

A child is born of a human couple. It can only be human, you twits. Come on, this is basic biology. Offspring can't be any species other than the parents. I can't believe that this has to be explained.

Dingo, I hope this answers your question. I also hope that you realize how incredibly stupid it was to ask.


Onix, "racialization" is BS. There are obvious genetic differences between African, Asians, and Europeans. To question whether someone is human strictly on the basis of genetic differences is ignorant. Of course, I realize that any reference to race makes some people very uncomfortable.

Therefore, asking if somone with Down's is human is like asking if someone with Cystic Fibrosis or PKU is human.

Either way, it's pretty damned stupid.
Click to expand...


I am very, very, very gobsmacked by this reply. Where do I start?
Why are you obsessed with Downs sydrom people? They are people of course and as such I can ask questions about them. If I have to be extra "careful" about my way of questioning about DSP then this would make them "differen" to the rest of us. Now THAT is very patronising. I am a person that calls a man in a wheelchair a shit because he rolled over my foot. Why not?
I would call everyone else the same. If I made a distinction between the person in the wheelchair and another one I will give him "special" status or in other words I belittle him/her.
I would find that far more offensive than being treated like everyone else.

Further more you are so wrong about offspring having to be the same as their parents. How do you think life has evolved? Not only that. Let me clarify what I meant by my question as your head seems too clouded with your PC haze.
Do you agree that lets say chimpnzees have a different amount of chromosomes as humans?
Of course you do. Now the question is how many?
I know it isn't many, they are our closest cousins though.
Cousins, exactly. Not humans. Still from your really infantile reply I gathered that your opinion is that it doesn't matter if there are couple of chromosomes missing here and there.
Ok, here goes my question again. It was meant as a hypothetical question only:
"If one chromosome less can make a different species from us I was merely wandering if theoretically a person can still be classed as homo sapiens sapiens?"
Is it actually known how many chromosomes have to be different to classify a species?
I don't know at the moment. Anyway. I was merely wondering from a very nosy point of view if DSP could be still of the human race but maybe of a differing species?

Also, why are you so scared/ offended to be something else than a human?
You don't know that I find it actually exciting and would love to find out that I am a different species. I really mean it. So why is it so BAD not to be homo sapiens sapiens??????

Last but not least I was very disappointed about your name calling towards myself. Just because you think that your ethical and moral ideas are the "right" ones doesn't give you the automatic right to imply the word "stupid" several times.

I found your post ill researched, righteous and very very childish.
 
stuneville said:
Because prove meant "test" until a hundred or so years ago (the sense still exists in "proving ground".) It's only come to mean "confirm" relatively recently.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, Stu - I'll tuck that away in my memory banks.
 
Dingo667 said:
Also, why are you so scared/ offended to be something else than a human?
You don't know that I find it actually exciting and would love to find out that I am a different species. I really mean it. So why is it so BAD not to be homo sapiens sapiens??????
Click to expand...
We're in danger of getting over-excited here, I think.

The bit I quote above sums up the difficulties and the possibilities.

And I think Dingo's initial query was worthwhile, and an attempt to get a scientific answer to a question of classification.

This dispute reminds me a bit of Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad"
 
kirmildew said:
My sister Rhiannon is seven and has Downs; my Mum said once in a throwaway moment, " I wish I'd called her Ann or Mo or something so she can spell it!" Don't be fooled by the 'placid and loving' stereotype trotted out for Downs people; my mother has the patience of a bloody saint!!
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm very aware that the usual 'Barnados poster' image of a smiling, jolly person who likes to hug people a lot, is a stereotype.

----

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 221#650221

I'll just elaborate a bit more on my previous post.

Dingo - I accept you had a question and I also accept that you did not necessarily intend to cause offence. As I posted, sometimes you have to realise that no matter how well intended a question such as that is meant, someone may be offended/hurt by it. That isn't to say that you shouldn't ask questions like that but perhaps take five to consider how you should word things like that in future.

-----


John Langdon Down is the man who described Mongolian Idiocy and his work in classifying the syndrome lead to that title being used for people with what we now call Downs Syndrome. He's usually lauded as a pioneer which he undoubtedly was but it must be remembered that during his classification of the condition he and his contemporaries had no qualms about carrying out some quite cruel and horrendous live experiments on people with Downs Syndrome.

This obviously wouldn't happen now but at the time it was accepted because people with the condition were not afforded the same rights as 'normal' people in society.

So why is it so BAD not to be homo sapiens sapiens??????
Click to expand...

As above. You possibly might be experimented on, perhaps sterilised and locked away from society for the rest of your life.

Anyway. I was merely wondering from a very nosy point of view if DSP could be still of the human race but maybe of a differing species?
Click to expand...

Like a sub-species? That was something that people with Downs Syndrome were once considered and again - like I said and others have - they are definitely still human.

I'll have a look at the possibilty of splitting some posts from this thread and creating a new topic. I'm hoping that the discussion will now carry on with a bit more civility between posters than has been shown so far.

i.e. let's calm it down a bit


Edited to include a reply to a post that I've moved from the 'Man in the Human Suit', the thread this discussion originated in.
Q
 
Dingo can speak for themselves, but this is what I thought their question meant:

Is our definition of human sufficently broad or accurate?

Many scientists would argue that it is not, and indeed has been revised many times down the centuries. Some even argue that humans and chimps and bonobos should be grouped under the same genus.

So I will ask, how much genetic difference does there need to be to make a new species? Is there a defined number? How much genetic difference before two animals cannot produce fertile offspring?

Going back to the original post, can I congratulate Redhead~ on actually helping the person, despite all her creepy feelings! well done.[/i]
 
I have an inane question to ask.

I have heard a FOAFtale that DS peeps are extremely strong.Is this true?
 
robbo616 - no, not all people with Downs syndrome are extremely strong, it just depends on the person as with anybody really.

It may tie in with a lack of awareness to their own safety and others but it isn't a feature of the syndrome that I am aware of anyway.
 
Nice to see the board defeating ignorance (mine, for one) by actually answering questions, and at the same time raising new ones.

It occurs to me that hedgewizard must be wrong when he says that when two humans have a child the result has got to be human.

Think in terms of evolution: at some point in the evolution of a species a male and a female are going to breed something that crosses a line between them and something else. Clear as mud. Let's try that again.

On the way to Homo Sapiens Sapiens there's Homo Fred. Over successive generations, Homo Fred continues to evolve until one day a child is born that is less like its parents than any preceeding child. Looking back on the fossil record, we identify this as Homo Barney. Now, these are hominids not humans. But one day their distant descendants will be human - another line is crossed. So if this were to happen today, would we notice?

What if it already has?
 
At the risk of dragging science into this debate ;)

Maybe the original question can be answered by looking at how chromosome pairs can appear in nature. For example, a gorilla and tobacco both have 48 chromosomes, yet are clearly not the same species. A fern apparently can have 1200 chromosomes, yet a dove only 16. So the number of chromosomes doesn't mean "advanced", "different species" ...not sure what is does mean though.

I think it's a valid question to ask, in as much as any question you don't know the answer to should be asked without fear of ridicule. We aren't at school anymore! If it's likely to provoke people it's fair to add the caveat that it's being asked in a scientific sense, which the OP did do.

Let's not develop a culture of "fear to enquire".
 
I don't think it's the gist of the question people found offensive - i.e. what makes us human? - but the rather unsubtle manner in which it was phrased.

IIRC a while back there was talk of trying to find out whether Neanderthals had been assimilated into Homo Sapiens populations through interbreeding or not, using DNA. Which supposes there are Neanderthal markers - but does that mean that they were chromosomically (is that a word?) different?
 
I think the important thing to realise is that our definition of "Human" isn't chromosomal or genetic, it's mostly cultural. This might be different to our definitions for most other species, but even so I doubt scienctists would classify a three-toed sloth with the slothian equivalent of Downs Syndrome as a new species either.

The other important thing to realise is that asking whether a group of individuals are human or not raises in many people's minds the idea that the group is to be considered "sub-human". This gets people's hackles up, as the argument that certain genetically (and culturally) distinct groups have been classified as sub-human in the past leading to discrimination, mistreatment, and in extreme instances, attempts at genocide.
 
DougalLongfoot said:
Dingo can speak for themselves, but this is what I thought their question meant:

Is our definition of human sufficently broad or accurate?

Many scientists would argue that it is not, and indeed has been revised many times down the centuries. Some even argue that humans and chimps and bonobos should be grouped under the same genus.

So I will ask, how much genetic difference does there need to be to make a new species? Is there a defined number? How much genetic difference before two animals cannot produce fertile offspring?
Click to expand...

There is no set number of differences before this kicks in.

There are weird examples that I seem to recall from when I was taught this like some monkeys who look identical but can't interbreed and other species of monkey that look different but can.

I think the real killer in this field are ring species (not Mr R.I.N.G.) where a species can interbreed with a neighbour who can interbreed with another neighbour but there is a point in the chain where the species at teh start can't interbreed with the latest link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

The complicated answer is that defining species gets blurry at the edge and if one invokes anything other than genetic compatability then you start to get into confusing areas (other animal species having culture, etc.).

There are big moves to give apes human rights for examples.
 
"Human" is being demonstrated right here on this very thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top