Who here acctually buys movies, music tv shows, e.t.c.

[LB]

Disch wrote:

I always thought the definition of "life" was rather arbitrary. If you want to stretch the definition to include things like businesses and cities (which are clearly artificial) then that kind of defeats the entire point of distinguishing life from non-life, IMO.

Now you need to define artificial.

Each cell in our body is a living organism. We are a superorganism of cells.

Each ant in a colony is a living organism. The colony is a superorganism of ants (in fact the colony acts like one organism - just like we do).

Each person in a company is a living organism. The company is a superorganism of people. If a company is not a superorganism of people, then we are not superorganisms of cells.

Disch wrote:

#3 - Metabolism certainly does not apply to businesses. The only organic components in businesses are its workers. And businesses do not create workers internally through metabolism. The workers aren't even strictly part of the business (ie: people are only there for a few hours before they go home and do other things)

Wikipedia wrote:

Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Do companies not transform materials into products?

As for your response to unemployment, you're right to some extent - but why are there then some fields which are still underemployed? E.g. various computer science and engineering fields?

@BHX: I protest the FPTP voting system by not voting. I have every right to complain when I don't like the person who was elected if I liked none of the candidates and the voting system did not allow me to vote freely rather than strategically.

@Cheraphy: Look up the Alternative Vote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
It's not the best but it's dramatically better than FPTP and doesn't evolve into a two party system. There is also a FPTP video on that channel.

[ne555]

you don't have to put so many conditions.
you have every right to complain, period.

[Disch]

Do companies not transform materials into products?

Many (most?) of them don't, no.

See any retail store, logistics company, law firm, sports team, school, etc, etc, etc.

Also... reread the definition of metabolism provided there. It specifically says:

1) Organic
2) Transformation of energy (not just of matter)
3) Energy is specifically used to fuel the lifeform


Even manufacturing companies, which do transform materials into products do not qualify. Because:

1) The materials they're converting are not, and do not become organic
2) They are using energy to transform matter -- they are not using matter to transform energy.
3) The generated products are not used by the company.

Each cell in our body is a living organism. We are a superorganism of cells.

Each ant in a colony is a living organism. The colony is a superorganism of ants (in fact the colony acts like one organism - just like we do).

Well it's like I say... you can stretch the term to mean this if you really want... but then the term loses all meaning, as most things would qualify.


EDIT:

also... another difference here which I hinted at before... is that the cells in our body exist solely in our body. Their only function is to perpetuate us.

The parts of a company do not exist solely in the company... they only stop in occasionally. They have many functions apart from perpetuating the company.

Whether or not that's a scientifically accepted difference is questionable though.



EDIT2:

And while some scientists may consider cities to be alive... the scientific community at large does not agree. Unless you can tell me which kingdom/genus/phylum/species/etc "New York" belongs to.

[LB]

Disch wrote:

The parts of a company do not exist solely in the company... they only stop in occasionally. They have many functions apart from perpetuating the company.

What, they're fired from the company most of the time and only get hired occasionally? Most companies don't have a physical location (except for legal purposes). And I am almost certain that employees are require to act in the favor of the company.

And yes, I consider many things to be alive, such as the entire universe (and many scientists view the entire universe as alive too, which is why I changed my views).

[Disch]

What, they're fired from the company most of the time and only get hired occasionally? Most companies don't have a physical location (except for legal purposes). And I am almost certain that employees are require to act in the favor of the company.

I'll concede this because I don't care enough to pursue it, and it's only a side point.

My main point is that companies do not qualify for life because they do not metabolize (at least not when you consider the literal meaning of the word).

The closest thing to "energy" that a company uses to sustain itself is money... and companies do not produce money through metabolism, they trade goods/services to obtain it from elsewhere.

Trading does not qualify as metabolism.

And yes, I consider many things to be alive, such as the entire universe

That's fine. I disagree.

(and many scientists view the entire universe as alive too, which is why I changed my views).

What kind of scientists?

The only scientists whose opinion on what is and isn't life matters are biologists. And I doubt many biologists consider the universe to be alive. If they did it'd have classification by now.

[LB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Freeman%27s_Through_the_Wormhole#Season_3
Episode 3 "Is The Universe Alive?"

[ne555]

¿have anyone watched `Cosmos' (Carl Sagan) ?

Even if businesses are alive, ¿how that equates them to people?

>> The parts of a company do not exist solely in the company
> What, they're fired from the company most of the time and only get hired occasionally?
> And I am almost certain that employees are require to act in the favor of the company.
damn capitalist alienation. subsumption

> Look up the Alternative Vote (...) doesn't evolve into a two party system
I wonder how things are going in Australia


Another thing, ¿which property right does piracy violate?

[Cheraphy]

LOVE me some Sagan.

[Disch]

@ LB:

I haven't seen that episode of that show. And I didn't see any blurb on that page indicate the answer to the question one way or the other.

It may turn out that the universe is alive, and I may be wrong (it's hard to speak in absolutes when you're discussing the unknown).

But given what we currently know about the universe... and how we currently define life... the answer that seems to be resoundingly clear to me is "no".


Your link also doesn't answer my previous questions of "What scientists?" Judging from the other topics of the show, and the show title itself, I'm going to guess they spoke primarily with Astronomers and Astrophysicists. And while I'm sure those people are brilliant and are an authoritative voice on the behavior of the universe.... they are not the authoritative voice on what is and isn't considered life.


Like I say... show me some reputable biologists that share this claim. Until you do that, you likely are not going to convince me.


EDIT:

Also, I don't think the universe reproduces... so it's already missing at least one of the necessary components.

[LB]

When you get time, just watch the actual episode. It shows the names and occupations with the interviews, and it discusses how it fits the characteristics (including reproduction). If I recall correctly, there are biologists in the episode.

As for whether the argument sided one way or the other, the show is completely neutral in all episodes and only shows and explains various sides and views.

[Disch]

When you get time, just watch the actual episode.

How am I supposed to do that without pirating?



See what I did there? Eh? Eh?

[3hM2Nwbp]

One thing came to mind about businesses that are alive.

http://www.wallm.com/images/t/1600x1200/48056-umbrella-corp-us-1600x1200.jpg

Clearly irrefutable. wait...are zombies technically classified as living?