Banter 58: What does it even mean to be a human?

Sunday, June 28th at 4pm
at Chris' deck (outside only) and via Zoom for those who can't or don't wish to join in person

Back in 2010 our very first banter topic was "What does it even mean to be a human?" Some of us went in the direction of animal vs. human definitions such as: "What are the complications and/or benefits of personifying animals or anthropomorphizing them?  How do you splice the divide between human rights and animal rights?  What are the historical complications (ie, Animals of the Third Reich excerpt) of leveling out human and animal rights if we bring humans down to animals?  Can we bring animals up to humans, why would we?  Why does the definition of what a human is often go scientific or push off of animals, yet not get too intricately into emotional, philosophical approaches to this definition?  Is it even possible to create a definition for a human that is meaningful, comprehensive, and artful?"

I'm curious to see where our 2020 group discussion takes us with this vague question.  We can do a combo of winging it (since most of us haven't come up with materials & since most of us will be out recreating all weekend and not doing much prep work) and diving into the below from those who gave us some direction: 
   
Nia's contribution (not to be confused with Naya):

The group might find this podcast episode interesting, an interview with a woman with autism and ADHD who wrote a book to explain being human to people like her, a kind of manual that she said she would have liked to have growing up: https://futurespodcast.net/episodes/16-drcamillapang

There are a number of podcast episodes from that podcaster that deal with transhumanism, AI, cyborgs, and the future versions of what being human might look like. 

Isaac's contributions:

“Man need not be degraded to a machine by being denied to be a ghost in a machine. He might, after all, be a sort of animal, namely, a higher mammal. There has yet to be ventured the hazardous leap to the hypothesis that perhaps he is a man.” ― Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

Jared P.'s contribution: 

In 2019, Congress passed a law prohibiting movies of animal torture and cruelty. https://www.peta.org/blog/pact-act-signed-into-law/

A federal law against animal torture demonstrates an evolving moral sensitivity to the suffering of non-humans. It recognizes a broader sympathy and understanding of suffering that may seek to diminish that suffering--even as life cannot exist without some suffering. Suffering can impel us to act when nothing else can. Here, however, even Congress recognized that some suffering can have no benefit to the life that is suffering. Perhaps humanity's morality is expanding with our abilities to fill our needs without causing that unnecessary suffering, so we have the luxury of stopping some unnecessary suffering. Or perhaps we are seeing more in common with animals than we see in the cold universe outside. Or perhaps this reflects the long arc of history moving closer to justice. 

Sabine's contributions:

Some definitions across eras and fields: https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/09/what-it-means-to-be-human-joanna-bourke/

A journalistic piece that my friend Ben Polley wrote a few years ago, and that I helped him edit.  This reminds me of how often our definitions of how we differ from animals (tools, language, property/territory, art/culture) have little to do with what is and mostly to do with what we humancentric creatures don't notice of the other creatures: https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/the_real_twitter_feed_that_we_have_lost_track_of/