How do we define “human?” This is one of the “big questions,” one that philosophers have thought about and reasoned through for centuries. Some have even arrived at solutions, although they are by no means final or decisive. The appearance of technology has blurred the once-distinctive line between living creatures and their nonliving counterparts; computers today are capable of mimicking the basic behaviors that distinguish living organisms and inanimate objects. If, at some futuristic time, humans become capable of making gadgets that can mimic our behavior, our intelligence, even our ability to reason, does that make them human? It all depends on how one defines “human.” My definition of human is limited to include only people who were actually born through natural processes and have not had major modifications to their genetic code. I believe that no object capable of replicating our behavior can ever deserve the title of “human,” and that our humanity is in no way lessened by our use of technology.

The movie Blade Runner raises questions along this line of reasoning. In it “replicants,” engineered copies of humans, are indistinguishable from the people. They act like humans because their creators imparted them with our capabilities. Mimicking our behavior does not make them human any more than it makes a little girl a grown-up when she tries on her mother’s makeup. People created the replicants for use as tools, like cars and alarm clocks. They assist us in reaching some desired goal. Some people disagree. They say that because the differences between the replicants and the humans are so minute as to be nearly impossible to detect, the replicants are, in fact, humans. They say that the “retirement” of the replicants is simply another word for murder. They argue that because the replicants are nearly exact copies of humans, because they even contain genetic material, they must be human. The replicants are, after all, able to do all the other things that distinguish humans from other creatures and non-living objects. But the replicants are still a creation. Other humans made them. If a researcher makes a robot that can function like a human, does that make it human? Of course not. The same reasoning applies to genetically engineered replicants. They weren’t born; genetic engineers made them. They simply function like we do; computers are gaining those same abilities, but they certainly are not human. Many people think of themselves as creations of their God, but they are still born by the processes of nature. They develop over time through natural growth process. Another person didn’t craft and assemble their body parts together, but that’s how the engineers made the replicants. The natural birth and growth process is part of being human.

Another standard for judging humanity is the unchanging quality of each person’s genetic code throughout his or her lifetime. Improvements in genetic engineering threaten to violate this criterion. Does a small change in one’s genetic code make one non-human? I don’t think so. But as more and more changes are made to one’s genetic material, however, one becomes less “human.” This is because one is no longer a true creation of nature; instead, one is more like a replicant, designed by someone
else to have specific properties. There is no defining point at which one changes from human to non-human; it is a more gradual process. Someone who argues against this would say that no matter how many changes are made to someone’s DNA, he or she is still a person. They say that he’s just modified a little bit, that he’s still the same person inside. But he’s not. When he deviated from his natural course in life, when someone else changed what he was destined to be, he became more of a
creation of that person than a natural human. He is more like the replicants than natural humans. The natural conception and development process is what makes us human. We come with our faults, but that’s considered part of the process.

The obvious argument against the idea that genetic engineering is detrimental to humans is that it will make us better individuals. What if everyone were the ideal height and weight? What if everyone could hit home runs and shoot straight and program computers? What if everyone possessed all the desired traits? We would all be the same - we wouldn’t be individuals. An individual is considered to be different from others in some way; he or she is better at some things at worse at others. As humans, we value our individualism. It drives us to be different. Sports are exciting to watch because not everyone can do what athletes can. Students attend college to learn a different skill than most other people, one that they want to be good at,
so they can make a living. If most people were good at that particular thing, there would be no point in learning it. We value our differences, and we see them as fundamental to our well-being.

Blade Runner raises some interesting questions about our individuality. Humans in the movie weren’t individuals, they were mass copies; they were treated as one large group, rather than a collection of individuals. Never mind what they thought, or wanted, or felt. In Blade Runner, however, they made no massive objections to this loss of individuality. People didn’t care. We value our individualism today, but will there be any individualism to value tomorrow? Even in current times, there are examples of this grouping together of people. One of the best examples comes from the government, which has standard forms and procedures for everyone to use and follow. The workers don’t care about you personally because there are too many people they have to deal with.

On another side of the argument, does using technology make us less human? I don’t think so. Recent developments in the field of computing, such as the Internet and its related applications, minimize face-to-face contact. A new type of culture has developed with its own rules on interaction between people. Some people argue that this loss of physical contact has led us to becoming less human, as if that is possible. They say that when Internet users get online to chat and e-mail one another they become a blend of technology and humanity, that the human factor is lost somewhere along the way. Many of them wish we could go back to an earlier time period, when the primary form of communication was face-to-face. I think that the Internet is another form of expression and communication that has developed and grown to become popular. The method of delivering the messages may contain less “humanity,” but the message itself certainly does not. The characteristics of humans that drive the Internet – if it did not contain elements that are “neat” or “cool,” it would not be widely used. It is simply a different form of
interaction between people. The Internet allows people to be different, though part of a larger group. This individuality is another key element to being human. Technology can advance without its loss, but only if we try to make it do so.

This individuality, along with an unwillingness to accept changes in one's genetic material, are two things that make us "human." Other traits, such as a natural birth and development, do as well. Mimicking human behavior is not enough to make something qualify as human, which is why the replicants are excluded from this group. These are not all the traits that define humanity, though. The connotations behind “human” provide a deep, more thorough understanding. They stem from the belief that we as a whole are unique in our own way, that nothing we create can be quite the same. Technological advances are threatening to mimic our behavior, but they cannot be our equal. If genetic engineering continues on its present course, we may well become closer to replicants than humans.  If we lose our individuality, we will succumb to being the same. If that happens, we may never regain our humanity again.