# Is the term human being exclusive to homo sapiens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387 "2004-10-15T15:37:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/1 "2004-10-15T15:37:32Z")
Meaning, if we came across an intelligent advanced race, about our level of growth, and somehow both sides overcame there xenophobia, and we were allies/friends, could we call them human beings too? Maybe this should be in GQ but I see no factual answer as we know no aliens. I mean, the doggie question got moved out of GQ because we can’t get a dog’s answer! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/2 "2004-10-15T15:42:11Z")
Not in a scientific sense. The term human really means any species that belongs to the genus _Homo_, although in the vernacular it is usually reserved only for _H. sapiens_. But even in a non-scientific sense, it wouldn’t make sense to call aliens 'human beings". We’d likely call them whatever they call themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/3 "2004-10-15T15:49:12Z")
The idea came to me because I am reading Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, and the “aliens” do refer to themselves as human beings - in thier own language. They referred to the outer ones as the aliens. It just seemed intriguing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/4 "2004-10-15T15:49:24Z")
It’s a purely semantic question. In SF universes like _Star Trek_ and _Babylon 5,_ the usual practice is to refer to nonhuman sentient beings as “nonhuman sentient beings” or words to that effect. Generally they refer to nonhuman sentients as “people” or “persons,” but not as “humans” – only Terran-derived _Homo sapiens_ are humans. A more interesting question would be legal classification. At present, Anglo-American law divides everything into “persons,” “animals,” and “things.” “Things” are inanimate objects (including plants). “Persons” are human beings (also, purely legal entities such as corporations and governments) which have legal rights and legal duties. “Animals” have some protections under the law, but no rights or duties as such. They are divided into “domestic” animals, which are somebody’s property; and “wild” animals, which are the property of nobody in particular, but which you, as a person, have the right to make your property if you find one on your land and capture it – though the picture might be complicated by animal-cruelty laws, the Endangered Species Act, hunting regulations, and state and local ordinances regarding the keeping and transportation of wild animals. If Klaatu lands on the White House lawn, steps out of his saucer, and some jumpy citizen with a gun shoots him – has that person committed a crime? Depends on whether Klaatu is legally a “person” or an “animal” – which would be what we lawyers call a “question of first impression,” meaning no court nowhere has ever had to consider the question before. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/5 "2004-10-15T15:52:08Z")
> [@Elenia28](#): > > I am reading Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness… I very much enjoyed that book, although it’s been years since I read it. She’s a very good SF author. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/6 "2004-10-15T15:53:25Z")
Well, in this jurisdiction, as long as they were mostly of biological origin, we’d likely just extend the already-extant legalese term “natural persons” to include both humans and sentients of Species X. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/7 "2004-10-15T18:00:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s a purely semantic question. In SF universes like _Star Trek_ and _Babylon 5,_ the usual practice is to refer to nonhuman sentient beings as “nonhuman sentient beings” or words to that effect. Generally they refer to nonhuman sentients as “people” or “persons,” but not as “humans” – only Terran-derived _Homo sapiens_ are humans. > > A more interesting question would be legal classification. At present, Anglo-American law divides everything into “persons,” “animals,” and “things.” “Things” are inanimate objects (including plants). “Persons” are human beings (also, purely legal entities such as corporations and governments) which have legal rights and legal duties. “Animals” have some protections under the law, but no rights or duties as such. They are divided into “domestic” animals, which are somebody’s property; and “wild” animals, which are the property of nobody in particular, but which you, as a person, have the right to make your property if you find one on your land and capture it – though the picture might be complicated by animal-cruelty laws, the Endangered Species Act, hunting regulations, and state and local ordinances regarding the keeping and transportation of wild animals. > > If Klaatu lands on the White House lawn, steps out of his saucer, and some jumpy citizen with a gun shoots him – has that person committed a crime? Depends on whether Klaatu is legally a “person” or an “animal” – which would be what we lawyers call a “question of first impression,” meaning no court nowhere has ever had to consider the question before. OK, so this is like Stranger in a Strange land, right? Weren’t there huge property disputes about him being the only survivor of the ship? Since he wasn’t quite “human”? It’s been a long time since I read it, and can’t remember. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-term-human-being-exclusive-to-homo-sapiens/269387/8 "2004-10-17T01:01:02Z")
Bear in mind that our term “human being” isn’t solely reserved for those of us with “comparable” intellectual capacity. We don’t exclude people on the extremes of the intellectual bell curve, so intelligence isn’t the sole criterion for “humanity.”