>>6116447>>6116461>>6116462>>6116465>>6116468>>6116483Philosophically the notion of "humanity", human nature is very difficult to define. For example, the notion of human behaviour itself is very difficult to date; usually, anthropologists suggest behavioural modernity originating from fire control, so perhaps 250,000 ? years ago, but for instance toolmaking eg bifacial Acheulean stone axe achieved via lithic reduction have been made for perhaps 1~1.3million years. So is toolmaking a "human" activity? etc. There are also other anthropological signs, eg separation of deceased family member bones from food waste byproducts, an indicator of funerary rites / interment as a sign of "culture" respect for the dead etc. The point being that the determination of that which distinguishes the taxonomy of human behaviour, "humanity" all the civilised notions of consciousness understanding symbolism etc from animal behaviour could be arbitrary. At certain stages in history, child sacrifice, skull deformation / elongation, footbinding, breaking on the wheel and (the most cruel and barbaric practice of all) macroeconometric modelling all considered elements of human civilisation and culture humanity, etc. Even from the earliest myths, Humans also enjoy anthropomorphising animals, the natural environment and weather etc depicting them with "human" qualities, so perhaps the nature of "humanity" is merely an apparition or figment of imagination, a process of consciousness and storytelling and it is possible to imbue the "human essence" and those attributes into beings that are not apparently human themselves.
