Human vs. ... Other

Use this forum to discuss the April 2020 Book of the month, "Project Tau" by Jude Austin
Post Reply
User avatar
Nerea
Posts: 2724
Joined: 11 May 2018, 05:13
Favorite Author: William H. Coles
Favorite Book: Diamond and Pearls
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 672
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-nerea.html
Latest Review: Little White Lies by JC Anderson
Reading Device: Laptop
fav_author_id: 89641
Signature Addition: No Wahala

Re: Human vs. ... Other

Post by Nerea »

LyorBoone wrote: 09 Apr 2020, 17:58
Nerea wrote: 02 Apr 2020, 02:39 They are Projects with human like features. Since they are lab created beings, they serve in the pleasure of their masters, that is, the scientists. Technically, they are slaves to the scientists and may not enjoy the same rights as other humans. And true, they don't have parents, so it would be appropriate to call them human-based clones.
If two clones have a child, do you consider their child a human-based clone?
Interesting question. Let me do research then respond to your question.
"Regular reading improves your grammar."
No Wahala
User avatar
zhenya_reads
Posts: 18
Joined: 21 Jan 2020, 15:19
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 16
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-zhenya-reads.html
Latest Review: We are Voulhire: A New Arrival under Great Skies by Matthew Tysz

Post by zhenya_reads »

I absolutely love this question! This immediately reminds of animals - where do we draw the line between which animals it's acceptable to eat and which is not? I guess the answer would be hidden in our traditions and in the way we were raised.

Kalin and Tau fought for their rights and eventually escaped so the scientists could no longer exploit them. If Kalin never came to the facility, Tau would never consider this and would blindly believe everything he was told. And so maybe, without Kalin, the future of the clones would be full of exploitation, because that would be considered normal.

If you think about it - their fight and their escape might be the reason that people will respect clones and treat them like humans in the future.
User avatar
tanner87cbs
Posts: 284
Joined: 22 Feb 2019, 18:35
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 96
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-tanner87cbs.html
Latest Review: Soul Seeker by Kaylin McFarren

Post by tanner87cbs »

Tau was no doubt a clone, Kalin Taylor aka Kata was not though. Tau was the product of science, and feel the term clone is very accurate. Kata would be best classified as a project in terms of the book. He is for sure not a clone, as he was born, then from steps of his own misfortune ended up in the mess that is GenTech.
User avatar
Stephanie Runyon
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 3120
Joined: 17 Aug 2019, 06:37
Favorite Author: Destiny Hawkins
Favorite Book: The Omicron Six
Currently Reading: The White Coat Effect
Bookshelf Size: 1652
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-stephanie-runyon.html
Latest Review: Crossroads by Andrew Slac
Reading Device: B07R3HTWLN
fav_author_id: 100303

Post by Stephanie Runyon »

The issue regarding DNA could be disputed as, scientifically, humans share 97% of our DNA structure with bananas. I think the factor of "playing God" can always come down to we have no way of perfecting it and scientists would always want to contain their '"projects" for observation. If the clone is human, how would depression from lack of free will be handled? There are a lot of what-if questions for that view.
"Facts don't care about feelings." Ben Shapiro
"Don't try to keep up with me, I live on the edge too thin to see." Ryan Upchurch
"See, one man's inconvenience is another's joy." NF
User avatar
Odette Chace
Posts: 518
Joined: 22 Feb 2020, 16:22
Favorite Book: The History of Love
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 576
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-odette-chace.html
Latest Review: Everyday Pocket Poetry by LoAnn Twedt

Post by Odette Chace »

Clones are able to think and feel just as we do so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else. What I think would actually happen legally is very different.

This is, partly, a religious question. Do clones have souls? Depends on your spiritual beliefs. To me, the answer doesn't really matter; we should treat them as equals.
Jocelyn Eastman
Posts: 179
Joined: 26 Jan 2020, 14:49
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 49
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jocelyn-eastman.html
Latest Review: Phoenix by Patricia Simpson

Post by Jocelyn Eastman »

I think clones should be afforded the same legal rights as humans. Technically they are human, they just came to life differently.
I don’t think we will treat clones the same though, because we tend to ostracize things that are different. I don’t think this book is that far off the mark. That we could use clones as stand-ins for humans for scientific experiments because we will consider them not human.
User avatar
raindropreader
Posts: 55
Joined: 18 Mar 2020, 14:00
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by raindropreader »

I personally completely believe that they are humans and deserve human rights. I believe this because although they don’t have mothers and fathers there are some cultures and tribes in the world in the past where they raised children in a community setting with all the members as their “parents”. I also believe that because the projects are fully human they are therefor human beings and deserve human rights. I do see how some could disagree but this is just my own opinion
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

zhenya_reads wrote: 11 Apr 2020, 06:47 I absolutely love this question! This immediately reminds of animals - where do we draw the line between which animals it's acceptable to eat and which is not? I guess the answer would be hidden in our traditions and in the way we were raised.

Kalin and Tau fought for their rights and eventually escaped so the scientists could no longer exploit them. If Kalin never came to the facility, Tau would never consider this and would blindly believe everything he was told. And so maybe, without Kalin, the future of the clones would be full of exploitation, because that would be considered normal.

If you think about it - their fight and their escape might be the reason that people will respect clones and treat them like humans in the future.
I completely agree that it was fortunate for Tau that Kalin came to the facility (even though it turned out ...somewhat unfortunate for Kalin). Tau knew nothing other than what he had been through and seen at the facility. He had no idea that there was or could be more. Through Kalin, he was able to discover an entirely new (to him) world. It's a nice thought that they might prove to be the pioneers for clones being included in the ranks of humanity. Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts with us!
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

tanner87cbs wrote: 11 Apr 2020, 10:24 Tau was no doubt a clone, Kalin Taylor aka Kata was not though. Tau was the product of science, and feel the term clone is very accurate. Kata would be best classified as a project in terms of the book. He is for sure not a clone, as he was born, then from steps of his own misfortune ended up in the mess that is GenTech.
Correct...technically. We're looking outside the terms of the book here, philosophically speaking. Tau was definitely a clone; he was created at the lab. Kalin/Kata was a 'modified' human who was no longer considered human because of modifications that were forced on him (albeit through his own mistake of coming to the facility in the first place). The question is, since Tau has the same DNA as a human, has the sentience and emotions of a human, as well as having been created with human DNA, should he be considered any less than a human? Test tube babies are human, is there a difference? Kalin/Kata is human by right of birth, why now should he be considered less? Food for thought! Thanks for dropping in and sharing your thoughts with us!
User avatar
Lisa A Rayburn
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 2977
Joined: 09 May 2018, 07:34
Currently Reading: Fluff Dragon
Bookshelf Size: 267
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lisa-a-rayburn.html
Latest Review: Nightlord: Sunset by Garon Whited
Reading Device: B018QAYM7C

Post by Lisa A Rayburn »

Mounce574 wrote: 11 Apr 2020, 10:26 The issue regarding DNA could be disputed as, scientifically, humans share 97% of our DNA structure with bananas. I think the factor of "playing God" can always come down to we have no way of perfecting it and scientists would always want to contain their '"projects" for observation. If the clone is human, how would depression from lack of free will be handled? There are a lot of what-if questions for that view.
Okay, I HAD to look this one up. From what I found, we share approximately 1% of our DNA with bananas (or any plant life on earth).
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/arti ... na-bananas
I agree that scientists, for good or ill, will always want to contain their projects. Their dogged pursuit of Tau and Kalin/Kata was evidence of that. Why do you think Tau was 'born' without free will? Having it savagely suppressed and being brainwashed into thinking you have no choice in anything isn't the same as not having free will at all. As far as depression, that life was all that Tau had ever known. You can't miss what you've never experienced. I would say that, yes, it's a complicated issue with many questions within it. I appreciate you stopping by and sharing your thoughts with us!
User avatar
AJ_Drenda
Posts: 43
Joined: 05 Feb 2020, 03:02
Currently Reading: The Girl Who Drank the Moon
Bookshelf Size: 17
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-aj-drenda.html
Latest Review: Land of Kings by Virginia Weldon
Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU

Post by AJ_Drenda »

LyorBoone wrote: 09 Apr 2020, 17:58
Nerea wrote: 02 Apr 2020, 02:39 They are Projects with human-like features. Since they are lab-created beings, they serve in the pleasure of their masters, that is, the scientists. Technically, they are slaves to the scientists and may not enjoy the same rights as other humans. And true, they don't have parents, so it would be appropriate to call them human-based clones.
If two clones have a child, do you consider their child a human-based clone?
Ha! That is an excellent question!
Are the clones capable of reproducing? My assumption was that they were not, but that might have been me trying to separate a clone from a human.

If the clones were able to reproduce and have children, then I would consider their children human.
Born, not made, from two genetically separate individuals.
User avatar
Samisah
Posts: 274
Joined: 17 Feb 2018, 02:16
Currently Reading: Final Notice
Bookshelf Size: 44
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-samisah.html
Latest Review: Illustrated Short Fiction of William H. Coles: 2000-2016 by William H. Coles

Post by Samisah »

First of all, humans are no robots. We have a will and ability to make decisions independently. But clones, however human like remain at the beck and call of their creators.
I don't see any comparison. So why should they have the rights and privileges reserved for humans? It's a no brainer.
User avatar
naraj
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Mar 2020, 11:07
Currently Reading: Dune
Bookshelf Size: 13
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-naraj.html
Latest Review: Mixed Blessings by J.M. Muse

Post by naraj »

I think to label these rights as "human rights" and then take these rights away from anyone or anything (!) that we don't define as humans, is kind of cruel. Defining rights for sentient beings is more moral in my opinion. Giving them a chance to prove that they're not only of "human rights," but rights of their own.
Best,
Nara
User avatar
jdsatosk
Posts: 144
Joined: 08 Apr 2019, 11:36
Currently Reading:
Bookshelf Size: 133
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jdsatosk.html
Latest Review: Homecoming by Jude Austin

Post by jdsatosk »

Arimart99 wrote: 03 Apr 2020, 19:56
Kelyn wrote: 01 Apr 2020, 22:29 They have no mother, no father. So...what are they?
I find the way you put this a bit funny since in our society, we have people that don't know who their father or mother is. Many of them are forced to live on the streets, but we still consider them human, don't we? I don't think the issue of having parents matters when it comes to defining a human. (I completely understand what you are trying to say about having no parents, I was just reminded of this situation)
Also, if they are living, breathing creatures, they deserve a certain amount of rights. Even animals are given rights. There are even animals that are protected by the government; they are given food, a decent habitat, and protection (people can even be jailed for harming these animals).
I'm going to jump on your comparison of clone rights to animal rights! It is fascinating the way that humans are able to compartmentalize and decide one thing is worthy and the other is not. In regards to animals, the dog is a man's best friend and, in many cases, treated as a treasured family member. Then we are completely fine with turning around and eating Bessie, the cow we carefully raised from birth. THEY ARE BOTH CUTE ANIMALS!! It seems that humans have a definite line in the sand - even though the sand is very shifty...

So would we eat a dog that somebody told us was a cow? If it were impossible to tell the difference between a cow and a dog and that somebody also told us that the cow barked because it was trained to do that? How horrified would you be to find out that your delicious "steak" you just ate was a dog? Would it make you not want to eat any more steaks for fear that you could unknowingly be eating a dog again?

I know this sounds ridiculous, but the point I am getting to is that we shouldn't treat clones any different than "real" humans because:
A) They are human beings - just not created the same conventional way and without the typical mental, emotional, and physical growth experiences.
B) I hope you would be horrified to find that you treated a "real" human the way you would treat a clone (just like the scientists were).
C) You could be mistaken as a clone at some point (Kalin) and it wouldn't be a good experience to all of a sudden not be a "real" human anymore.
User avatar
NatRose
Posts: 157
Joined: 21 Mar 2020, 19:32
Currently Reading: The Eye of the World
Bookshelf Size: 27
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-natrose.html
Latest Review: Who Was That Masked Kid by Dan Neiser

Post by NatRose »

jdsatosk wrote: 17 Apr 2020, 14:29 I'm going to jump on your comparison of clone rights to animal rights! It is fascinating the way that humans are able to compartmentalize and decide one thing is worthy and the other is not. In regards to animals, the dog is a man's best friend and, in many cases, treated as a treasured family member. Then we are completely fine with turning around and eating Bessie, the cow we carefully raised from birth. THEY ARE BOTH CUTE ANIMALS!! It seems that humans have a definite line in the sand - even though the sand is very shifty...

So would we eat a dog that somebody told us was a cow? If it were impossible to tell the difference between a cow and a dog and that somebody also told us that the cow barked because it was trained to do that? How horrified would you be to find out that your delicious "steak" you just ate was a dog? Would it make you not want to eat any more steaks for fear that you could unknowingly be eating a dog again?
I grew up on a small farm, and to me the difference between a dog and a cow is... not that much. Dogs have obviously been more domesticated and might be somewhat smarter depending on your definition of intelligence, but I see no reason why eating dog meat should be considered worse than eating cow meat. For some people, this realization encourages vegetarianism, but for me it means I'd eat dog meat if I needed to. (Sorry if that horrifies you.) I'd also like to point out that our beliefs on what animals are fit to eat is also very culturally dependent. There are cultures where cows are considered sacred or where guinea pigs are regular cuisine.

Anyway, I agree with you that human clones should be treated no different than other humans. It's hard for me to understand arguments that claim otherwise.
Samisah wrote: 17 Apr 2020, 09:21 First of all, humans are no robots. We have a will and ability to make decisions independently. But clones, however human like remain at the beck and call of their creators.
I don't see any comparison. So why should they have the rights and privileges reserved for humans? It's a no brainer.
Clones are not robots either. If they're human clones, then they're human just as a clone of a sheep is a sheep. The fact that they weren't born naturally shouldn't have any bearing on this. Even if they don't have past experiences, they have a working and intelligent brain that is constantly changing and will start compiling experiences as soon as they wake up. There's no reason to think that a clone would have less will and decision-making ability than a baby does, nor that these wouldn't develop over time just like they do in other humans. They're only "at the beck and call of their creators" if we treat them as slaves, not because they are innately less able than any other human. That's my thoughts on it anyway.
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Project Tau" by Jude Austin”