Ones and zeroes. This is what computers know, right? It may not mean anything to us, but people generally know that the basic language of computers is this simple two-option system: binary. We see it all over in ads and media: "code" either looks like gibberish or a heap of 0-1 patterns.
However, just because it uses binary doesn't mean it has to be binary. I was baffled to learn that the elegant on/off states that binary provides (0 = off, 1 = on) are not the required system for computing. It just happens to be the easiest way to clearly distinguish the amount of electricity going through.
According to UC Berkeley Computer Science Professor, Sarah Chasins:
The very first computer that we...recognize as a computer, the ENIAC, actually used base 10...Remember that the way that we're representing this information inside the computer is by how much electricity is flowing through a part of the computer...
As she explains in the video, as electricity is measured, the two opposite ends are the most obvious: electricity is going through or it is not. However, we can measure thresholds of the electricity, similar to a dimmer switch for a lightbulb. You can make the lightbulb less bright, but it gets harder to be precise with the setting for a dimmer switch than a standard on/off switch. You may not always dim the light to the exact same amount every time—what's a three in a ten-position dimmer switch? How do we know when we rolled the switch to a four?
This is potentially very important information to be aware of at a time where we use computers as metaphors for our lived experiences and even the systems of our bodies. When people say things like, "the human brain is like a computer" or that "the human body is a machine," I think we are setting up potentially dangerous structures of thought.
Now, I'm not a doctor, so I can't be fully confident in my science/understanding of the human body, but I don't think that a "machine" is a great metaphor for how bodies work, and I have heard this critique by others who are more likely to know what they're talking about. But even if it were a good metaphor, we lose some of the nuance that is critical to understanding our health. For example, we may start to devalue rest—our bodies are machines? Then we better push and push and work and work. People become proxies for productivity, burning themselves out and wearing themselves to breakdown.
I think the same issues lie in the public's general knowledge of the binary system being the root of computing. We may start to collectively accept the thinking error that every choice, every chance, every thing is an all-or-nothing contest. You either have or have not. You either win or lose. You're either good or evil. You're either man or woman. You're either worthy or worthless.
This reduction to binary makes things simple, sure. It may even seem to be more clear. The clarity is an illusion, though, caused largely by the abstraction from reality that binary thinking relies on. Anyone who has had to confront any situation or experience or relationship that breaks the expectations of social norms or personal beliefs knows that human life is not so simple.
Divorce, for example, has been stigmatized and therefore carries huge amounts of shame, but it cannot be considered an intrinsically bad thing. Divorce may mean freedom from an oppressive or toxic relationship for one or both partners. Just because it has consequences, doesn't mean it should be avoided if it's the right thing to do. Crucially, for those who know someone who has been through divorce (including if that's yourself), we must help reassert to that person that they still belong in relationship with you and "us"—that they aren't unworthy, they aren't their divorce, they aren't cast out.
Same for many other situations, like for those who are LGBTQIA+, where choices are presented that are far more difficult to operate on than a simple yes or no system. "Coming out" isn't a one-time event, it happens all of the time when meeting new people, and a queer person has to constantly determine whether it is safe to be "out" or whether they need to use evasive techniques when it comes to talking about themselves. For those not on clear ends of a spectrum—whether for gender, sexual orientation, or any other experience—the struggle to explain or express yourself can get tricky. Are you really queer if you say you're bisexual? Are you really black if your mom was white? Are you really able to do math if you're female?
Binaries in social constructions seem to lead us to these harsh, stereotype-rich, demeaning forms of measurements. "Are you enough?" becomes the ultimate question. If it's all or nothing, 1 or 0, then someone has to decide what the threshold is and then dogmatically reinforce that imagined line. The reality of human experience lacks those clear lines.