I imagine having this conversation, with no one in particular, but everyone in particular. So I guess the audience can be anyone that is open to listen and learn another human being’s perspective. For me, getting back to basics gets me to a starting point of a plain, vanilla, generic human being. A good starting point from which to build.
That plain, vanilla, generic human being has all the capabilities to at least be alive. I can breathe, keep my heart beating, move about, and contain the basic abilities to sustain my life. But I’ll start off with having no learned abilities. As I was born, I was a standard issue human, that had at that point, the potential ability to provide half of the necessary biologic organisms required to create additional humans at some point in the future. Okay, that’s a good defining point.
And since I had the future potential for providing one half of the necessary biologic organisms required to create additional humans, logic would therefore dictate that there are other human beings that had the potential future capability to provide the other half. Okay, this logical thinking seems to be working so far.
But, what do we call these humans to differentiate them. Oh, let’s use ‘XX’ and ‘XY’. Okay, but is that the only things that define what a human is? Well, obviously not. If it were, that would imply that the brain is only there for rudimentary bodily functional capabilities. And what if there turns out to be a ‘YY’ human? Or, what if humans aren’t limited to just two X or Y nomenclatures? What if there were three?
At some point you have to introduce the ability of the brain to provide a higher level of thought, or reasoning, or whatever else its limitless capabilities provide. The human brain is exposed to not only the world around us, but millennia of genetic learned experience. That simply follows logical sense.
Are we not at the point of realizing that human beings are more than one trick ponies? If we are, then what defines us? Is it based on our roles in life? Or maybe our hobbies? Or the work we are good at? Or the place we were born? Or the color of our skin? Or the language we speak? The list is endless I suppose.
Given we are all unique and individual human beings, and there are 8,048,502,424 humans, it would therefore stand to reason that there would be that many definitions of what defines a human. But we all know that is insanely ludicrous, and unmanageable to do that. And just limiting it to a category of two is far too simplistic. But where to draw the line?
I guess that then depends on how the person drawing the line is themselves defined. But for them to be defined, don’t they therefore need to have been defined by someone else’s definition? Otherwise, are they not invalid? And that surely cannot be the case that one human is more or less valid than any other human.
So let’s explore one aspect of the basic physical human. As we exist, we need energy. In order to obtain that energy we consume food. If we were a plant, we could just go sit in the sun; but we aren’t. But a by-product of the consumption of food is the waste that is produced that we periodically need to remove from our bodies. Well, society has created private areas for humans to perform these tasks for health reasons. To do otherwise invites sickness and disease.
So now we are back to the ‘how many things define a human’ question. In our dwellings, the areas that humans use to rid ourselves of the waste generated from food consumption is quite simple. But our bodies, at least in this area, don’t function based on some geo-location. No, our bodies, in this aspect, function based on when that part deems it necessary.
In public we do not have the luxury of the privacy we have in our own dwelling. We must rely on an area that has been provided and designated by where we are. And it is quite understandable, given the practicality of the need, that these are limited. I mean, you can’t have one private area for every possible human. And it is surely easier and less expensive to provide the facilities in more of a group based design.
Given this logical sense, why is there such an issue these days about which facility is used, and by whom? Might it be because there are more definitions being placed on the facility, and the people that require the use of that facility, than are necessary for the proper use of that facility? Maybe it is a learned experience about situations that are outside of what the requirements are for why the facility exists, what it is used for, and who requires the use of the facility?
And therein lies the real issue; someone else’s fear based on what their life experience is. It certainly is not a genetic response, so it must be learned. And we can’t dismiss the fear as irrational any more than anyone’s fear can be dismissed as irrational. Given what the fear is, and the fact that it is unrelated to the purpose and use of the facilities, can those fears not be addressed elsewhere, and by other methods?
I mean, what if I went into any of these types of facilities and decided to setup a stove to cook dinner, or setup a booth to sell pillow cases, or a lab to continue developing a cure for hang nail. That would be as absurd as the examples I provided. I guess in the end, it boils down to stripping things back to the basics and find out, and address, the real underlying issues and fears. And then we can all sleep much better at night, and be happier.
More Articles by Michelle Lawson
- The Magic of Memories
- if not a then b: if a then not b
- Summertime in Antarctica
- While I Pondered, Weak and Weary