People are molecules

Human equals molecule
A "human equals molecule" image, showing the view that a human, by definition, is a molecule, or structure comprised of two or more atoms.
In hmolscience, people are molecules, or “humans are molecules”, aka people are chemicals, similar to the “humans as stardust” view, as compared to “people are NOT molecules”, refers to the view, belief, or definition that a human is a molecule, a powered 26-element animate thing, specifically, or “human molecule” (or human chemical), generally.

Of note, in discussions as to whether or not a human, by definition, is a “molecule”, a common semantic objection that tends to be raised is that a human is not a molecule, but a “structure comprised of molecules”, e.g. DNA, RNA, protein, H2O, etc. This objection, while being a correct statement, is, however, a small picture view of things.

Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.”
Edward Harrison (c.1990) Publication (Ѻ); cited (Ѻ) by John Wiley (1995) in “Phenomena, Comments and Notes” (Ѻ); cited (Ѻ) by David Christian (2004) in: Maps of Time

In the big picture, e.g. evolution timeline, great chain of being, molecular evolution table, molecule to man evolution, hydrogen to human, etc., view of things, there is NO dividing line, demarcation point, or reaction mechanism step, in which one of our ancestors was not a molecule, in the era following the formation (Ѻ) of helium hydride (HeH+), the universe’s first molecule.

This view, however, is rather advanced. Most, e.g., being imbibed with some variant of the Darwinian "warm pond model", believe that a lightening bolt sparked a vat of chemicals in the past, at which point all sorts of anthropisms, e.g. life, free will, etc., started, which differentiates humans, from mere molecules.

The following are related quotes:

“Are we a fortuitous concourse of atoms?”
— John Draper (1860), opening paper, read at Huxley vs Wilberforce debate, “on the intellectual development of Europe with relation to Darwin's theory”; was, supposedly, was a dry discourse [1]

“The belief state of an obscure lump of molecules wandering around a remote corner of England is of no importance whatsoever epistemologically speaking.”
Barry Barnes (1998), response to David Mermin whether he “might perhaps be into astrology” [2]

“The bird is a molecule, each human is a molecule, and molecules will invariably tend, i.e. are forced, to migrate towards the most energetically stable configurations.”
Libb Thims (2007), Human Chemistry, Volume One (pg. 96)

See also
HMS pioneers
Human molecule
Human molecular formula
Powered CHNOPS+20 element thing

1. Lucas, J. R. (1979). "Wilberforce and Huxley: a Legendary Encounter" (Ѻ). The Historical Journal. 22(2):313-33.
2. (a) Barnes, Barry. (1998). “Oversimplification and the Desire for Truth: Response to Mermin” (abs) (pg. 637), Social Studies of Science, 28:636-40.
(b) Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David and Henry, John. (1996). Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. University of Chicago Press.

TDics icon ns

More pages