I think you should teach them all those things, but I don't think you can really impart to them the answer of "what it means to be human." That is a question they'll grapple with for a long time themselves, after the first shock of realizing that they don't know the answer (probably around age 13-15).

You want them to know all those things so that they'll recognize what some of the properties of an answer have to be.

Of course, on second thought, the factual things you teach them about what humanity is and what it means will also percolate into their answers, I think. Do you think humanity is a creation of God? Not a creation of any divinity, but the highest and noblest thing ever to evolve? Not especially noble, but what we're stuck with? Our last best hope? Our first, worst problem? Unique? Mundane?

Those things will go very early into their conception of what they are, and will later be built into their answers, unless rejected.

One thing that has fascinated me for a while is the word itself--"human". There are some older English style guides that insist that the word is an adjective only and not a noun. But in modern usage, "human" is used almost exclusively (at least in the things that I read) as a noun.

An adjective-only usage would suggest that there are certain traits associated with being human that may or may not apply to people. I can be human and you can be human, but that other guy might not be. I would call this a normative description of humanity--it tells us what we should and shouldn't be.

I prefer the adjective-only perspective because it allows for a justification of rights. I would elaborate on this more, but I have to wake up early tomorrow. Essentially, using "human" as an adjective separates particular behaviours from animalistic behaviours, and this allows us to assign rights to people that we wouldn't assign to animals. If we use "human" as a noun, we make it a subset of animalia instead.

Nothing makes us human except our genes. Our big brains confuse us and make us contemplate all these weird questions but we're simply primates that are particularly attempt at throwing and running long distances. Love is a rather recent human phenomenon in our evolutionary history. And I'd argue, with the rise of love has been the decline of friendship (and decline of marriage). That can be seen as a good or bad thing. I don't know. Good or bad are rather meaningless. It's just what it is.

*adept not attempt

" If we use "human" as a noun, we make it a subset of animalia instead. "

So? We come from the apes and, quite honestly, animals treat their own generally better than we do.

Nonsense, human babies take years to develop and parents even provide for them after young humans can walk and hunt for themselves. We wouldn't have big brains if parents didn't defend their young for extended periods of time.

If nothing makes us human except for our genes, then there is nothing to justify treating human beings better than non-human animals. That is to say, if we're simply organic biological accidents, then we have no moral standing above or below other organic biological accidents. The foundation of rights is on the idea that we as a species are better than other species. If you adopt this position, I congratulate you on your moral consistency so long as you refrain from eating meat.

"If nothing makes us human except for our genes, then there is nothing to justify treating human beings better than non-human animals."

Correction, nothing to justify treating human beings better than non-human organisms period.

"That is to say, if we're simply organic biological accidents, then we have no moral standing above or below other organic biological accidents. "

Sure, but morality, rights are social contrivances designed to provide order to ever larger groups of human beings, families, clans, tribes, etc, enabling cooperation & enhancing survival.

"I congratulate you on your moral consistency so long as you refrain from eating meat."

I don't see what meat has to do with it. There are other organisms besides animals. But I do try to limit intake anyway as it's unnecessary and I rather like animals.

I'm just waiting for Krellin to call this some liberal pussy bullshit or something.

I wrote something on this:

The human condition is everything that comes with being a mortal and vulnerable, yet self-aware animal. It comes with the harvesting of nature’s bounty, of striving against the harshness of nature; it is a fear of animals and of the dark, humility towards the natural world and a respect and adherence to the weather. In opposition, it is the familiar comforting feel of “home” and a warm fire, it is the successes we have, the inventions created through necessity however small which make our lives easier, and our never-ending struggle to cure various ailments and diseases. The awareness of one’s own mortality, whether through the contemplation of a landscape or prayers to God, giving us a feeling that the world is far bigger than us, our individual insignificance and the inevitability of our death which we constantly struggle with throughout our lives. And it is also the products of that knowledge of mortality; sacrifice and genuine altruism, imagination and fantasy, and possessing values of morality and meaning that surpass our physical surroundings. Although we dream of infinity, it is the day to day passing of our lives that paint our condition the most; gathering and preparing food, obtaining clothing and belongings, and appreciating the complexity of the world around us from the forest floor to the night sky. Yes, the human condition is a group of great concepts like love, loss, triumph and disaster, glory and happiness, but it is ultimately the simplicity of raising our children or communicating with others that give us our deepest satisfaction. We enjoy the things which bind us to each other and allow us to express our selves, through song and dance and the creation of art, jewellery and decoration.
The other side of the human condition is our unique capacity for evil. Our life-struggle seems to be continually obstructed by other people or events, something which can cause us to feel emotions like anger and hatred. Our self-esteem, if wounded, causes us to seek revenge; our strife for security may cause us to inflict harm upon others for our own benefit. More sinisterly, personal failure and fear can lead us to purposefully inflict cruelty and harm upon others, most frequently to other humans (or to the anthropomorphism of intelligent animals...we would never, for example, derive satisfaction from the torture of a tree as we would an animal) to seek a kind of revenge upon consciousness itself for its lack of empathy to our own situation and intentions. We remain eternally at war with ourselves.
We are posited therefore under an infinite raging sea of conflicting forces and ideas, the clamour of human life through which we kick and scream our way, deriving pleasure from what small victories we can achieve against insurmountable odds; a species of ape which understands its own value, but does not yet know how to reconcile apishness to the importance we attach to our lives which we constantly fight to protect.

This seems like a poem.