Ribofuk: the 50+1 Rule

After Ribofunk I am left wondering, when humans have the power to manipulate their physical appearance, do they remain human? Is there something transitive that remains in a human like a soul that defines what it is to be human? What, for example, would we say to the man who is 51% human? Framing it in that way makes us say “hey 51% they have crossed the line they are human” or maybe “they have not crossed the line yet” but this is paradoxical. This reminds me of the Ship of Theseus paradox, where the ship is kept the same because its parts are exchanged, this makes the question of is it still the same ship a kind of metaphor for humanity. What do we do when we have become 50% human? Where does that leave us parcial human certainly but is a human still a human if it is missing all of its parts? Is a dog human if it shares 21% of its genes with us? Is it even possible to be slightly human if all the parts are not there? If a human needed to reorganize their parts and cells and atoms to compose something more desirable would the human still be the same or would they be different. If my arm became a claw of the same materium would I still be the same human? What if all of me where reorganized to constitute something physically different composed of the same stuff? Maybe a dog with all human components. Have I changed my humanity or not? The human element has been reduced in this case to crucial components. But is that really the way humanity needs to bee looked at if we are to truly understand what a human is? Maybe a categorical analysis would be more useful. Say for instance your origins play a part in your humanity, do you remain human when your father and mother where humans but you are a computer? Maybe not entirely but it can be a part of what it means to be human. Lets add categories and say that you must have ape ancestry of which your current program is modeled after, then are you human? Maybe more so. But is that not too complicated? Are we not more simple animals than a series of ever growing categories distinguishing us from the other that are not human? The stories in Ribofunk make me wonder how our relationship with technology acts upon us in the way that prevents us from having control and how it acts upon us in the way it empowers us. I think about using the internet and think it is great and has without question unlocked our power to communicate (even if incompletely or in a different way) which is a powerful thing. On the other hand do we become so dependent upon the technology of internet communication that we are no longer able to function in its absence? Humans adapt quickly if tragedy strikes and our environments are drastically changed, we also adapt quickly when good fortune strikes and technology makes our lives better, just look at the learning curve on your modern day computer and the updates in the operating software. Now take that technology away. Are we better off for being exposed to cashiers and service professionals that use computers to perform their tasks more quickly(or the task becomes part computer) or are we weakened because we put our faith in the machine and when, not if, the machine malfunctions the entire system is disturbed? It reminds me of when I tried to order a burger from a fast food joint when the machine broke down. He said I can’t sell it to you, I said why not and he said the machine is broke. Ma and Pa burger joints use paper, does training or exposing ourselves to the use of awesome new technology widen the area for disaster that over reliance brings with it?
Maybe but as Ribofunk demonstrates we cannot escape it, the machine and us are one now.