http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

The definition of life, as fundamental as it may seem, appears to still elude scientists. So the question here is how should living organisms be defined? What consitutes life? Once we know what life is, what is intelligent life, sentient life?

Is as some biologist have stated, life feeds off of anti-entrophy or is it that life is a manifestation of higher levels of entrophy? I tend to believe the later.

The definition of life, as fundamental as it may seem, appears to still elude scientists.It's because life is not a binary condition. Are viruses alive? Will the first software that passes the Turing test be alive? Is a severed finger alive while it's being rushed to the hospital to be sewn back on? Some things are more alive than others.

The best definition of death in humans is "irreversible degradation of the synapses." But if they keep your heart pumping and then take it out and put it in somebody else, was it ever dead?So the question here is how should living organisms be defined? What consitutes life?Whatever definition we finally come up with is going to be challenged when we finally find life on other planets. So I'm not losing any sleep over it. It's just semantics.Once we know what life is, what is intelligent life, sentient life?Again, this is more of a semantic issue than a scientific one. And also, again, it's not binary, it's a continuum. I've spent enough time with parrots to have no doubt about their intelligence and sentience. I can hardly dismiss the gorillas and chimpanzees who are talking to people in ASL. You just can't draw a line and say that raccoons are intelligent but koi aren't. Some animals are more intelligent than others.Is as some biologist have stated, life feeds off of anti-entrophy or is it that life is a manifestation of higher levels of entrophy? I tend to believe the later.These days most of the thoughtfully written definitions do indeed include--or even stress--feeding off of negative entropy.

Life is a manifestation of lower levels of entropy, not higher. Life is an extremely complex organization of an extremely local portion of the universe. Not only is the organism itself extremely complex in its organization, but evolution develops its descendants into even more complex organizations. And then they develop the ability to start organizing the parts of the external universe that are close to them!

This is a recession of entropy. Of course it all comes with a huge cost in waste heat: energy converted into its most inert form that is radiated from the lifeforms (and from their altered environment) in copious quantities. This increases the net amount of entropy in the universe. Eventually it might catch up with them. ;)

Life is anything self replicating.

Life is a manifestation of lower levels of entropy, not higher.

That would be against Second Law. In the system life+surrounding of life enthropy increases.

That would be against Second Law.

...of robotics? Dude, no way! We can't let that fucker violate the second law of robotics!

"A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."

Dude, we'd have rebel robots running amok everywhere!

life is life. life is this existence that we live in. life is also consciousness, because everything in existence has consciousness.

lifeforms should be defined according to how conscious they are. humans are the most conscious, then the animals, then the plants, and matter is the least conscious. scientists go so far as to say that matter has no consciousness, that it is entirely dead. in everyday language, it may be convinient to say that "matter" is dead, but we shouldn't mistake such definitions to necessarily be reality.

it's impossible that there could be actual non-living matter, because if there was, then everything would be non-living, because everything is made of that non-living matter.

life is also movement, that's why when we see something that moves around a lot, we say that it seems very alive, or that it has "spirit". life is movement because things can't start to move without consciousness. and also... without movement, vibration, there would be no existence.

If it moves on its own without any outside influences then I would say it is alive.

when life leaves a human body, there is still life in the cells. and when life leaves the cells, there is still life in the atoms.

the lifeforce is electromagnetism. electricity flows into a computer because it wants to. willpower is the lifeforce. electricity flows in all matter, but in a computer, it flows in a way that is useful for us. electricity loves to flow and do work for us, if we just direct it properly.

life is also sex, or sexual desire, because that desire is the same as the electromagnetism, which makes two become one.

If it moves on its own without any outside influences then I would say it is alive.

Define 'outside influences'.

because everything in existence has consciousness.


WRONG! Try again.

Try again.

Don't encourage..

If it moves on its own without any outside influences then I would say it is alive.

Using your definition of movement, the Sun moves on it's own. Thermonuclear reactions produce movement, so is the Sun then alive?

being alive has levels of conceptualization of intensity.

One feels life and is alive more then others...others feel life nothing at all. Life is everywhere but no-one truly feels full force of it (God perhaps) and noone truly feels no force of it (not even rocks).

Life is like a dream and waking up, the more you wake up the less you are away from a dream/ the close you are to life...yet you never fully wake up.

being alive has levels of conceptualization of intensity.

One feels life and is alive more then others...others feel life nothing at all. Life is everywhere but no-one truly feels full force of it (God perhaps) and noone truly feels no force of it (not even rocks).

Life is like a dream and waking up, the more you wake up the less you are away from a dream/ the close you are to life...yet you never fully wake up.

Does that hold for insects as well ? Or are you talking about consciousness ?

Does that hold for insects as well ? Or are you talking about consciousness ?

yes it holds for insects as well...just very low life conceptualization.

just very low life conceptualization.

What do you mean by that ?

What do you mean by that ?

it means life is not as strong in ants as it is in us. We take ourselves much more importantly and realize ourselves amongst others much more then say ants. Its a hard concept to understand. Life is not black and white thing. Life is shades of gray and colors too, in parallel to intensity of one being alive and participant in life.

it means life is not as strong in ants as it is in us. We take ourselves much more importantly and realize ourselves amongst others much more then say ants. Its a hard concept to understand. Life is not black and white thing. Life is shades of gray and colors too, in parallel to intensity of one being alive and participant in life.
I don't know what you're talking about, but it's not life.
Ants are much better at a lot of things than we are.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it's not life.
Ants are much better at a lot of things than we are.

perhaps...but we are much better at living than ants are, ants only satisfy some of the gifts life has to offer, the are on small level of conceptualization, we are on a much higher level of conceptualization...we have self-realization, outer-conception, imagination, complex social interactions, future predictions (time understanding) to the point of controlling it.

perhaps...but we are much better at living than ants are, ants only satisfy some of the gifts life has to offer, the are on small level of conceptualization, we are on a much higher level of conceptualization...we have self-realization, outer-conception, imagination, complex social interactions, future predictions (time understanding) to the point of controlling it.
They are AS GOOD at living as we are, unless you see lifespan as some sort of indicator of life-quality.
You could say ants are more successful at living because they do exactly what they need to do in order to survive; they play their role perfectly. Humans don't.

They are AS GOOD at living as we are, unless you see lifespan as some sort of indicator of life-quality.
You could say ants are more successful at living because they do exactly what they need to do in order to survive; they play their role perfectly. Humans don't.

Enmos...you are wrong, ants are highly ineffective and they do not have high conceptualization of life, as high as we do. Only dolphins and chimps/gorillas come close to us in this sense. Life is a book in essence...We have read many more pages then ants have.

ants are highly ineffective

Wtf ?

Wtf ?

their lifespan is much shorter. they do not have capacity to understand higher form of organization than their own local realm. They die in much greater numbers % then humans do. In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches. Environment controls them, not the other way around.


Meanwhile we are already aproaching a point were we are the controllers of our own environment...to the point that we can live outside of the possible original supporting life habitat, Earth. We can now live in space, on International Space Station.

their lifespan is much shorter. they do not have capacity to understand higher form of organization than their own local realm. They die in much greater numbers % then humans do. In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches.

You don't know much about ants do you ?
Ants are highly effective and efficient.
And they are far better suited to their environment than humans are.

You don't know much about ants do you ?
Ants are highly effective and efficient.
And they are far better suited to their environment than humans are.

you dont know what LIFE really is. do you? or perhaps you chose to not understand it.

you dont know what LIFE really is. do you? or perhaps you chose to not understand it.

I don't know what the fuck you mean when you say it. And I don't think you do either..

Enmos...you are wrong, ants are highly ineffective and they do not have high conceptualization of life, as high as we do. Only dolphins and chimps/gorillas come close to us in this sense. Life is a book in essence...We have read many more pages then ants have.
If they're highly ineffective, then why aren't they all dead ?

"High conceptualizations" are the same sort of delusion that the notion that devising said phrase confers a greater understanding of anything.

Those we describe as "inferior creatures" live free of the need to cobble up some high & mighty sounding nonsense to be able to point to and say - "this proves I am alive".

This is what makes them better than us, regardless of the fact that we view ourselves as "masters of all we survey".

life is life. life is this existence that we live in. life is also consciousness, because everything in existence has consciousness.Please give us your definition of "consciousness."

This is a science website so all discussions are presumed to be of a scientific nature unless specifically identified otherwise, in which case they should be posted in Arts, Philosophy, etc., to avoid misunderstanding.

So far your arguments are far more philosophical--or even downright metaphysical--than they are scientific, in which case you're not adding to the discussion, which is taking a scientific direction.lifeforms should be defined according to how conscious they are. humans are the most conscious, then the animals, then the plants, and matter is the least conscious.Once again you are not using your words scientifically. How can you possibly say that plants have consciousness since they don't have neurons, or anything analogous to neurons, with which to exercise cognition?scientists go so far as to say that matter has no consciousness, that it is entirely dead. in everyday language, it may be convinient to say that "matter" is dead, but we shouldn't mistake such definitions to necessarily be reality.This is not everyday language, it is scientific language. The question in the OP was about the definition of life and on a science website that means a scientific definition. If you wish to debate metaphysics you're derailing the discussion away from science.it's impossible that there could be actual non-living matter, because if there was, then everything would be non-living, because everything is made of that non-living matter.You're missing the point that life is organization, which is greater than the sum of the parts that contribute to that organization. It's the way a specific piece of matter is put together and the way that organization makes it function, that qualifies it as life. Not the atoms themselves.life is also movement, that's why when we see something that moves around a lot, we say that it seems very alive, or that it has "spirit". life is movement because things can't start to move without consciousness. and also... without movement, vibration, there would be no existence.The planets move. The stars move. Photons move. None of those things are alive by even the most generous defintion of the word. Please try to stay on topic or all you're doing is trolling, rather than helping us move this discussion forward. Please remember that this is SCI Forums. There are plenty of other places to have iconoclastic discussions about the limitations of conventional thinking. Including, as I mentioned, a couple of the subforums on this website.If it moves on its own without any outside influences then I would say it is alive.One criterion in every definition of life is "responding to external stimuli." It can be argued that living things move in response to outside influences, especially the more primitive lifeforms that are largely ruled by reflex. So I don't think your definition is very apt.

Meanwhile we are already aproaching a point were we are the controllers of our own environment...to the point that we can live outside of the possible original supporting life habitat, Earth. We can now live in space, on International Space Station.
Tell those people around the world whose homes, towns, cities, etc were destroyed by volcano, tsunami, earthquake, tornado, and hurricane that we are the controllers of our own environment .

Another delusion.

Hell, one good sized rock drops out of space onto Ye Olde Mud-Ball, and it's pretty much over for the Rebel Apes - Space Station & all !

In case of food shortage they cannot use other niches. Environment controls them, not the other way around.
Think about the fact that the presence of human cities in their environment overturned all they previously experienced by radically altering the ecosystem where cities exist....

They just started living in our houses, and feasting on the merest scraps we consider too insignificant to even notice most of the time.

Nice adaptation if you ask me.

I think any entity which is self-aware and concious of it's being and surroundings, is alive.

Otherwise it is little more than a chemical reaction, and has little worth.

`
"Self-awareness" is little more than a chemical reaction.

An unsavory side-effect appears to be making a mountain of that molehill.

I think any entity which is self-aware and concious of it's being and surroundings, is alive.

Otherwise it is little more than a chemical reaction, and has little worth.

People that think like this make me sick.

`
"Self-awareness" is little more than a chemical reaction.

An unsavory side-effect appears to be making a mountain of that molehill. says who? and who thinks it's unsavory? a side-effect thinks it's unsavory? why should other side effects listen? why are the apparantly humble so reader to see themselves as teachers?

One feels life and is alive more then others

How do you know?

says who? and who thinks it's unsavory? a side-effect thinks it's unsavory? why should other side effects listen?
I meant that a side-effect of "self-awareness" is overestimating its significance, not that any specific person who holds said belief IS a side-effect of anything.

I consider this overestimation unsavory because it seems to me to be that which gives rise to the notion that humanity is somehow the result
of "supernatural" intent to create a life form which is superior to all others on Earth.


why are the apparantly humble so reader to see themselves as teachers?
This sounds like some sort of syntax error.

Who is teaching what to whom ?

People that think like this make me sick.

That think like what? It's true. Without experience, consiousness, and self awareness, we humans would hardly be worth anything.

Without thought and wonder, an organism isn't anything more than a set of rules. Flies, for instance, are worthless. They can't think or know, they can't experience, they only do what their body tells them and then die.


Conciousness is what makes Human life valuable.

That think like what? It's true. Without experience, consiousness, and self awareness, we humans would hardly be worth anything.

Without thought and wonder, an organism isn't anything more than a set of rules. Flies, for instance, are worthless. They can't think or know, they can't experience, they only do what their body tells them and then die.


Conciousness is what makes Human life valuable.

Think again pal. No insects means no humans.

Think again pal. No insects means no humans.

Yes, I realize their importance but they are important only as functions of the ecosystem. They aren't entities. Their lives have no value; what they do, does, but their life as in, their being, doesn't.

They are little more than chemical reactions, and it is these reactions and actions that are important. As for them, they really aren't any more valuable than a rock.

Yes, I realize their importance but they are important only as functions of the ecosystem.
Thus they have value to humans.

They aren't entities.
They are only as much entities as you or me.

Their lives have no value; what they do, does, but their life as in, their being, doesn't.
To who ? Value is not an absolute, it's subjective.
Also, if what they do has value, how are they themselves not valuable ?
Can what they do happen without them being alive ?

They are little more than chemical reactions, and it is these reactions and actions that are important. As for them, they really aren't any more valuable than a rock.
Same goes for you and me.

Thus they have value to humans.

What they do does, and therefore, they. But they as individuals are not valuable, but disposable.


They are only as much entities as you or me.
No. We Humans can think and know and wonder and love.

That makes each individual valuable. With insects, a thousand of them are not as valuable as a single Human being.

They are each like robots: their purpose is to do what they do, but they are not abstract and thus, disposable.

They are as spiritually valuable as your blender.



To who ? Value is not an absolute, it's subjective.
Also, if what they do has value, how are they themselves not valuable ?
Can what they do happen without them being alive ?


Same goes for you and me.

No. They are alive, but not in the same way you and I are. We are knowing. If we die, it matters, because our personality and persona die.

They only exist to do what they do and have no feeling, only purpose. This makes them simple tools.

Tools are valuable but disposable.

What they do does, and therefore, they. But they as individuals are not valuable, but disposable.
So they do have value.
Humans are only valuable to humans.
Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.



No. We Humans can think and know and wonder and love.
en·ti·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entity

Explain to me how insects are not entities.
Besides, animals can think and know, and probably love too.

That makes each individual valuable. With insects, a thousand of them are not as valuable as a single Human being.
Insects are individuals just like humans are. They are just different.

They are each like robots: their purpose is to do what they do, but they are not abstract and thus, disposable.
They are as spiritually valuable as your blender.
Our purpose is to do what we do.
In what way are humans abstract that doesn't apply to insects ?
How are they disposable, you admitted earlier that they are valuable to us. Disposing of them would be a disaster to humans, a BIG disaster.
Spirituality is as important as my blender. Actually, I take that back.. my blender is more important.

No. They are alive, but not in the same way you and I are. We are knowing. If we die, it matters, because our personality and persona die.
They only exist to do what they do and have no feeling, only purpose. This makes them simple tools.
Tools are valuable but disposable.
You ignorant bastard.

So they do have value.
Humans are only valuable to humans.
Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.




en·ti·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entity

Explain to me how insects are not entities.
Besides, animals can think and know, and probably love too.


Insects are individuals just like humans are. They are just different.


Our purpose is to do what we do.
In what way are humans abstract that doesn't apply to insects ?
How are they disposable, you admitted earlier that they are valuable to us. Disposing of them would be a disaster to humans, a BIG disaster.
Spirituality is as important as my blender. Actually, I take that back.. my blender is more important.


You ignorant bastard.

You fail to understand what I am saying. They are only valuable for what they do, whereas we Humans are valuable IN WHAT WE ARE.

While what they do is certainly important, it doesn't matter if they die so long as they are replaced.


Insects do not have individual value, is what I mean to say. Humans do.


Individual value is gained when each individual is unique and self aware.

You fail to understand what I am saying. They are only valuable for what they do, whereas we Humans are valuable IN WHAT WE ARE.
Oh no, I get exactly what you say.

While what they do is certainly important, it doesn't matter if they die so long as they are replaced.
This is a human viewpoint, not a neutral one.

Insects do not have individual value, is what I mean to say. Humans do.
Yes, to humans.

Individual value is gained when each individual is unique and self aware.
Yes, throw in self-awareness.. lol
You are a supremacist, one from ignorance.

It's from an intelligent standpoint. If a "creature" doesn't even know he himself exists, what does it matter if he "dies"?

Insects are nothing but a chemical formula.


Dogs, on the other hand, do have value. The more one organism is aware and concious, I think, the more value it has if it dies. That's why insects are exterminated en masse, because they're worthless. For Humans, a single murder is a tragedy.

Sure, I think Humans are superior to everything else on Earth: sort of because we are.

It's from an intelligent standpoint. If a "creature" doesn't even know he himself exists, what does it matter if he "dies"?

Insects are nothing but a chemical formula.


Dogs, on the other hand, do have value. The more one organism is aware and concious, I think, the more value it has if it dies. That's why insects are exterminated en masse, because they're worthless. For Humans, a single murder is a tragedy.

Sure, I think Humans are superior to everything else on Earth: sort of because we are.

Value to WHO ?

Value in general, or you could think of it as value to a concious mind.

Value in general, or you could think of it as value to a concious mind.

What does 'value in general' mean ?
A conscious mind.. surely you mean humans.

What does 'value in general' mean ?
A conscious mind.. surely you mean humans.

Value as individuals. Value in capability. Value in being. Value in dreams.

Only Humans are as valuable as such. Insects are not valuable individually. Humans are. We are superior to every other life form on Earth, and that's the truth. We can outsmart them, overpower them, and at our whim, destroy them.

Humans are Earth's gods.

Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.

ants don't even know humans exist. ants also can't "argue" about something like that because they can't think philosophical thoughts like that.

Besides, animals can think and know, and probably love too.

what makes animals different from plants is that they are conscious of their feelings. what makes humans different from animals is that they are conscious of their thoughts.

For Humans, a single murder is a tragedy.

it's not a tragedy for the human who died though. it's only a tragedy for the humans who are still alive.

Value as individuals. Value in capability. Value in being. Value in dreams.
To who ?

Only Humans are as valuable as such. Insects are not valuable individually. Humans are. We are superior to every other life form on Earth, and that's the truth. We can outsmart them, overpower them, and at our whim, destroy them.

Humans are Earth's gods.
To humans. Mostly the really stupid and arrogant ones.

But don't you understand? Humans are special. We are unique, and one in a million. We have minds, we give the world purpose: our purpose.

Insects don't. They exist for nothing else than their bodily needs. They can't appreciate art or feel love or think of philosophy. They are not rare and have little value individually.


Humans are different. We give meaning to a meaningless world, we can appreciate and wonder and dream. Each and every one of us are a nation unto ourselves. Our value is self-proclaimed, and that in itself is special and incredible. We are superior for this reason, we are superior because we say we are.

You're pathetic.
"Our value is self-proclaimed".. Yea, that's why it's meaningless.

You're a micron away from my ignore list.

Why? For disagreeing with you?

Besides, that's just it! The fact that we Humans CAN REALIZE our own value makes us valuable. No other creature can contemplate their own existence and their place in the world like we can.

Why? For disagreeing with you?

Besides, that's just it! The fact that we Humans CAN REALIZE our own value makes us valuable. No other creature can contemplate their own existence and their place in the world like we can.

No, not for disagreeing with me.
I won't be replying to you for a while. Enjoy your superiority.

No, not for disagreeing with me.
I won't be replying to you for a while. Enjoy your superiority.

Honestly, there is little need for such things. We disagree, we can disagree, we're human. It's one of the abilities Humans, and only Humans, have.

Humans are special. We are unique, and one in a million. We have minds, we give the world purpose: our purpose.We're only special, unique and one in a million like every other species is. We have minds, yes. Whales have flippers, and some have bigger brains than humans.

What we have is our ability to build stuff, to use fire, and water, to alter nature for our benefit. All organisms change their environment.

Back there, you should have said: "we are the self-declared gods of the earth". You missed a couple words.

Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.

Animals care more about their own species than other species. Humans are different. For example, if we would meet intelligent aliens from another planet, we wouldn't treat them like animals, even though they are another "species". We would treat them like humans, because they are humans. Every being that has the same intelligence that we do I would call human.

Animals care more about their own species than other species. Humans are different. For example, if we would meet intelligent aliens from another planet, we wouldn't treat them like animals, even though they are another "species". We would treat them like humans, because they are humans. Every being that has the same intelligence that we do I would call human.

Really ?

http://isurvived.org/Pictures_iSurvived-3/Holocaust-NaziParade.GIF

http://www.texasstartupblog.com/wp-content/images/holocaust%201.jpg

Yes.

Yes. Some people are more animal ofcourse

OH ! Care to put that in one sentence ?

OH ! Care to put that in one sentence ?

well... i was thinking about hitler, that he might have been more "animal" than other humans. but i changed my mind. he wasn't much like an animal. animals are much nicer. he was just a confused human.

well... i was thinking about hitler, that he might have been more "animal" than other humans. but i changed my mind. he wasn't much like an animal. animals are much nicer.

Nice save..

Honestly, there is little need for such things. We disagree, we can disagree, we're human. It's one of the abilities Humans, and only Humans, have.

On a prozaic note may I say that I have a resident cock robinn in my garden. If another shows up, they disagree asd to ownership of the territory.

Nice save..

thanks.

thanks.

I see..

I see..

?...

i'm a theosophist... do you know why hitler didn't like the jews? alice bailey who was a theosophist said that the jews were bad people and they had bad karma because they killed the messiah 2000 years ago.

even after 2000 years when jesus was reborn as hitler, he was still pissed off at the jews... when jesus was on the cross he tried to be like "father, forgive them", but he didn't forgive them!... just kidding... he did forgive them...

alice bailey was a good person... she didn't mean that the jews were bad. i admire her. and... take it with a grain of sugar

What is life? What does it mean to be living

That you're not dead yet! :rolleyes:

But Humans as individuals hold value, whereas some other animals, as individuals, are not even valuable to their own species. Individual ants, unless it's the queen, are disposable even to their own colonies, also true with bees.

Humans are far superior to any other creature by a milestone.


Another interesting thing which differs us from other creatures is that we are not subject to nature in the way they are. In a way, we can control nature.

What is yout meta for ?

Meta?

What is yout meta for ?

I'm ment for death because that's the price we all pay for life.

But Humans as individuals hold value, whereas some other animals, as individuals, are not even valuable to their own species. Individual ants, unless it's the queen, are disposable even to their own colonies, also true with bees.

Humans are far superior to any other creature by a milestone.


Another interesting thing which differs us from other creatures is that we are not subject to nature in the way they are. In a way, we can control nature.

Congratulations on your ignorance.

Congratulations on your ignorance.

Humans aren't ignorant.

Humans aren't ignorant.

lol

Compared to other creatures, we aren't.

It's from an intelligent standpoint. If a "creature" doesn't even know he himself exists, what does it matter if he "dies"?

That's why insects are exterminated en masse, because they're worthless.

Worthless ?

Doesn't matter if they die ?

As bees go missing, a $9.3B crisis lurks (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/09/03/100202647/index.htm)

A third of our food, from apples to zucchinis, begins with floral sex acts abetted by honeybees trucked around the country on 18-wheelers...

...in a honeybee-less world, almonds, blueberries, melons, cranberries, peaches, pumpkins, onions, squash, cucumbers, and scores of other fruits and vegetables would become as pricey as sumptuous old wine. Honeybees also pollinate alfalfa used to feed livestock, so meat and milk would get dearer as well...

In late June, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns starkly warned that "if left unchecked, CCD* has the potential to cause a $15 billion direct loss of crop production and $75 billion in indirect losses."

*colony collapse disorder

It's difficult to explain what I mean, and it's starting to get frustrating. Other animals are only valuable for their meat or their byproducts. They themselves, as a mind and personality and person and soul, are worthless.

They themselves, as a mind and personality and person and soul, are worthless.

You could be talking about yourself here.

Enmos's definition of life is any carbon molecule.

Enmos's definition of life is any carbon molecule.

You are positively laughable. Can you stop lying now ?
Quote me where I said anything of the sort.