Re: Sub-human
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:24:15 -0400At 1:40 PM -0400 7/14/97, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Dick wrote: " Why not just human, sub-human and non-human?"
>
>Like Glenn, I am very uncomfortable with the introduction
>of the category "sub-human" into our classifications
>of living beings. It opens a whole can of worms!
>
I'm with Glenn and Burgy on this one. Plenty of mischief has already been
worked in the past by virtue of one race or ethnic group deciding that
another is "backward", "primitive", "less-evolved" etc. I'm loathe to
repeat those mistakes. Since we are not now in possession of objective,
replicable criteria for differentiating human from nonhuman or subhuman in
the fossil record, why not just give _all_ potential ancestors of modern
day humans the benefit of the doubt? If such criteria ever become
available, we can change our minds, but like Burgy I am doubtful they will.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)