Yeayea good point, but I didn't make up those rules. Still a good point. Those rules suck. I care. Nah.
I would say yes. However, it also had some other criteria that I wouldn't say a star has.Quote:
What about a star? It grows and feeds and creates heavier elements that become planets when it goes nova. Is it alive?[/b]
My pencil doesn't have sex, does yours? How the fuck is a pencil alive? It doesn't grow, it doesn't procreate. A TREE is a live, not a pencil.Quote:
My pencil is made of wood. It has cells. Is it alive?[/b]
A proper biologist would tell you 'inactive' actually.Quote:
If you get a flu shot, you are being injected with the dead husks of a virus to help your body build an immunity to it. They are "dead" husks which means they were formerly alive. Viruses live and die.[/b]
Ok lets get two things clear: -I didn't make up those rules I posted, probably I didn't even post them correctly. Secondly, I don't give a shit about any of these definitions of life. I don't even think those rules where all that. What I DO know, is that most biologist and such don't really count viruses as proper life.
No shit sherlock. : )Quote:
Bottom line: You don't know what the bottom line is. Defining what "life" is is extremely tricky.[/b]
Still, I don't see viruses as life any more then I see a computer virus as life. A computer virus probably even has more lines of code :) But even then: WHY THE FUCK do people care? What is important is how you are going to ethically react to things uncertain of worthiness like humans and animals, like A.I. Call A.I. life, a program, intelligence, call it bananas for all I care. What matters is or people don't give a shit, or that they do.
HMKAY