This is interesting for its main points, but also just to look at a familiar argument from an unfamiliar viewpoint. There are some places where the analogy to

This is interesting for its main points, but also just to look at a familiar argument from an unfamiliar viewpoint. There are some places where the analogy to color didn't ring true for me, but it was still worth reading. Like the difference between the reality of a digital file and the "color" of it -- how these particular bits were obtained -- there's a hard line that you can draw between the reality of any situation and the many layers of stuff that we construct on top of it. There are lots of concepts that we think of as "reality" when they're pretty much just conventions that we've built on top. Arguments about ownership get fuzzy and confusing because ownership itself is not real; it's a complicated set of rules we generally agree on, but the details vary among cultures. If you observe a group of people without knowing their language, there's almost no way you can figure out who "owns" all of the things they interact with, and even asking the people themselves you'll get varying answers. Human rights are an invention. They aren't a thing, they can't be inherent to anyone, and you can't even have them in the first place, though we talk about them as if they worked that way. Rights are rules that one person can agree to follow respecting another person. If you're alone on Earth, your "human rights" are meaningless, aren't they? You need at least two people before one can violate/respect the human rights of the other -- by following the rules or not. And of course the rules are not universally agreed upon, because they are not real things to be discovered; they are constructions. The flip side of learning where that line goes (between reality and our constructed ideas on top of it) is the realization that a lot of this "fake" stuff is still really, really important.