Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnimalMuppet | Hacker News Reader

> If babies were not conscious then killing them would be no problem.

Say what? No. Killing them would be a problem because they're human. With that comes the capability to become conscious, whether or not they are at the time they are babies.

> It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred.

No, it's their DNA that makes them human.

View on HN

So is a single cell human "because dna"? Also, the possibility to become something (conscious, or a human being) implies not being that thing now.

Anyway, personally I have a higher view of what a human being is and why it's deserving of protection than just a string of information.

Why?

The sun will become a red star in 5 billion years. We have voids in our universe which are not crossable.

From my pure nihilistic view, it doesn't matter, never has, never will. From an idealistic view: we are humans, i value the uniqueness of mine and the complexity and uniqueness of everyone else being part of my experience.

What is your "higher view"? whats your pedestal?

I think we agree. Humans are conscious, intelligent, remember their past, plan and dream their future, suffer and hope, have friends and family and partners they care deeply about. And are each a fundamental part of the lives of others around them. That's why I feel that statements like "human beings should be protected because they have human DNA" are inadequate as they focus on something that is neither necessary nor sufficient.

By saying "becomes", I was intending to leave open the possibility that, by somebody's definition, a baby might not be conscious. But they aren't going to stay a baby forever.

The universe is dense with people that could have been but never was. For example all the children that would have been conceived in replacement to a previous aborted pregnancy. It becomes a problem for us only when we make a picture of that possible person in our head (starting, for example, from a fetus). But it's our imagination, not something that ever existed.

There's no gene for 'humanness'. It's a lie told to children to make biology easier to learn.

There is no one gene for humanness. Never the less, human DNA (the sum of the DNA carried by any one human) is distinctly human, rather than chimp or canine or lizard. That's why the organism becomes a human body, not a chimp or a canine or a lizard.

It's not as simple as that either.

> The genetic differences between Neanderthals and all modern humans (amounting to about 30,000) are far less than the differences between two random human beings alive today – around 3 million [1].

Clearly Neanderthals aren't more human compared to you than a randomly selected person.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/12/svante-paabo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com