Humans and People

First, I apologize for not posting recently, I've been on an either sporadic or amazingly slow internet connection for the past couple months. Moving on.

It's a minor peeve of mine when people talk about how "man has rights". Not because I disagree about the rights. Not because it's sexist (at least, not primarily, it's not intended to be anyways). It bothers me because it blurs the line between person and human.

Human is a scientific term. Person is a legal term.

There's a lot of overlap between the two, obviously. It's not surprising that people conflate them. It's like conflating hippies and vegans. For an example of the difference, consider a corpse. A corpse can be human, and everybody will say it's a human corpse. But it's not a person. If you say "I see dead people", most will assume you mean ghosts, not carcasses. By contrast, there are a lot of hypothetical and nonhypothetical nonhuman persons. Dolphins aren't legally recognized as people because statists are monopolistic retards. An example much easier for most humans to accept is that a "smart AI" could have rights. Stick a sentience just as smart as a human in a human-shaped body such that a casual observer couldn't tell the difference and you have a nonhuman with rights. Changing its appearance doesn't make it less of a person.

People are sapiences. Humans are monkeys. People are smart. Humans are stupid.

These are obviously not mutually exclusive, but I notice that there's a tendency to be one or the other, somewhere along a spectrum. I tend to get along better with those that are people, more than they are humans. I don't like people that put their humanity before their personity. I like people. I don't like humans.

Humans just act like monkeys. They travel in packs and conform and beat each other senseless over irrational emotive whims. They're afraid of everything and they just seem to hate everyone that's not in their monkeysphere. Religious nuts, nationalist nuts, racist nuts, etc.

People are great though. People are smart, adaptive, unique, peaceful, brave, and loving. Transhumanists are as explicitly "person" as it gets. They don't linger on the fact that they're human and act like they are doomed to be humans forever. They don't act like they're better than everything else because they're one specific species. They know that it's their sapience that gives them rights, not their humanity. And they know that their sapience, their existence as a "person", can persist independent of species or substrate.

It really isn't hard to figure out which you are. I'd throw humans under "loss-oriented" for fearing the loss of an improperly valued identity.

I've thought something like this for a long time (though it wasn't explicit until the past year or so), and I think this is the mindset that made me want to not insult myself by presenting as a human and being the same species as some of the morons out there, and made me prone to furrydom.

3 comments:

Monkt said...

Yiff in hell furfag

Ineffabelle said...

... and as if by magic, to prove your point, along comes a paranoid, aggressive, tribalist comment.

Resonance said...

Ooga booga booga...booga. I see what you are saying about "personity"; perhaps our common ground is that we see freedom as key here. You think the "humans" are inhibiting their own and others' freedom because they are afraid and irrational, and you celebrate the free, open-minded approach of transhumanism, having felt the joy and empowerment that freedom brings.

If you go live in one of the few remaining indigenous tribes, you may be surprised at the intelligence of those who live closer to the earth. My understanding is they needed to be very creative and resourceful and alert in order to survive without the layer upon layer of technology, structure and economic pressure that we use as a prop. In short I'm not sure you can lump monkeys, tribal people, and paranoid conformist mobs all into one.