Peeing on the Continental Divide

Last weekend I went skiing at Monarch Mountain with some family and friends, including two of my nephews. One of the lifts we rode took us to the very top of the mountain range. We stood there looking at the trail-map, and someone came up to us and gave us some recommendations on the slopes to take. He then asked the boys, "Do you know what you're standing on? It's the Continental Divide. If you were to pee over here, it would end up in the Atlantic Ocean. But if you were to pee over there, it would end up in the Pacific Ocean. And if you were to pee right here, well, some of it might end up in the Atlantic and some might end up in the Pacific!" He then waved goodbye and was on his way.

Unless you drank A LOT of water that morning, I highly doubt that any amount of pee would be recognizable as such by the time it reached one of the oceans. But the guy was 100% correct. Any water landing on the East side of the Continental Divide ends up in the Atlantic, while any water on the West side ends up in the Pacific....and if you were standing there with a full bladder, you could decide where it was going to go. As the crow flies, it's about 1000 miles to the Pacific Ocean, and about 1700 miles to the Atlantic. Standing on top of the Continental Divide, you can't see either ocean, but that's the final destination nonetheless.

We make decisions like that every day. We can't actually see where that decision will end up, but it will end up there regardless. Sometimes it takes someone else (even a total stranger) to stop by and tell us where a decision might lead. But if that happens, will we listen? Will we make an adjustment? Or will we continue making the choices we want to despite knowing the outcome?

If you were to pick up a cigarette and someone tell you that smoking leads to cancer, would you still smoke? If you were to pick up a can of soda and someone tell you that drinking soda leads to obesity, would you still drink it? If you were about to throw some plastic away and someone tell you that it damages the earth's ecosystem, would you still throw it away?

I understand that you have to trust that the person is telling you the truth, but if you know the information is accurate and the person is trustworthy, why would you ignore it?

What's a 'person'

Last night we watched "Robot and Frank," which I think is a pretty good movie. Rachel thought it was very sad, but we did find ourselves laughing at several parts and had a good discussion afterward.

The basic premise is that an older man (who is fighting dementia) is given a robot to assist him around the house and help improve his health and overall well-being. Frank initially rejects this idea but grows to appreciate the Robot. Early on in their 'relationship,' the Robot tells Frank that it is not a person, it is just hardware and software designed for a specific purpose. But when Frank's kids later refer to the robot as being nothing more than a mechanical slave, Frank responds with, "I need him. He's my friend." At the end of the movie, Frank has to do a factory-reset on the Robot, thereby erasing its memory. The Robot again assures Frank that there is no problem doing so since it is not a person.

But the Robot is a person in Frank's mind! Frank would not have attached himself in the ways he did to the Robot if he really believed it was just hardware and software. And it took the Robot repeatedly assuring and almost even begging Frank to wipe it before Frank finally was willing to do so.

The movie got me wondering 'What makes an entity a person?" I've come to the conclusion that whatever it is, it has to come from either within the entity or be projected onto it from someone else.

"I think therefore I am!" is a philosophical argument that 'personhood' comes from within.

Pro-abortionists believe that fetuses are not people and use arguments that 'personhood' is projected onto them at birth (or at whatever week gestation the particular pro-abortionist draws the line).

Frank obviously projected 'personhood' onto the Robot, but the Robot was the first to admit that it was not a person.

So what is it? Help me out here!