We denominate or call places while being assured that there are persons who can use the places as parts of their discourses.
There is not strange to give a name to a place which will never be populated, since there is a possibility to be used merely as a word by some people.
Likely, every time we conceive the world as an aggregation of places, there is easy to imagine it as a bared place with only a linguistic existence.
From such perspective, when we say and recognize that the world is populated by human beings, we place them under the same linguistic vagueness.
The general discourse about human beings is partly based on this linguistic interpretation of the places. When there are invoked general features of humanity in order to solve particulars problems about us, the language is not stopped about any necessary and impossible appeal to the community of real individuals.
The characteristics of places observed from a long distance, as extension and silence, are frequently transferred over human beings. In a theoretically account, they value as long they represent a numerical or temporal extension, and there is also possible to speak about them as if they actually have not the power to speak.
Nonetheless, we meet the same attitudes in the practical relations of life. The linguist import of places and the permanent reference to places in everyday activities are principal means of escaping the more difficult search for subduing our linguistic habits to the individuality of every person we meet.