Occasionally we spot an insect in the house and need to get rid of it. My usual approach to these situations is to scoop it onto a piece of paper and throw it out of the house. Sometimes though there’s no option but to squish it and I feel horribly guilty. It preys on my mind for quite a while afterwards.
Once we had to lay mice traps and I had to get rid of them once they were caught. I was told to just throw the traps away with the mice still in them, but this struck me as pretty cruel. The animal would die a lingering death from starvation, exposure or something worse. So I gave them a quick death by summary execution outside. This is more painful for me, but I tell myself it’s the least I can do.
My question is – does everyone feel this way?
I try my best to avoid killing anything. While this may strike one as a good thing, the corollary is that I treat all life equally – human or animal. Given a choice to kill a random human and a random dog, I would flip a coin. Given a choice between a dog I know and a random human, I would always choose the dog.
So two things are odd in me. First, I have a problem killing spiders, ants, insects etc…which many may view as a good thing. But second, my value for human life doesn’t seem to be the same as that held for it by others. Many individuals I have seen place human life at a higher value than all other forms of life – even when the life in question is no better than a bunch of cells as in a fetus.
People will happily eat eggs, chickens, and cows and yet raise hell when a woman wants to have an abortion of a fetus that is just a few days old and is clearly nothing more than a bunch of cells! I agree that there is a time limit above which a fetus can qualify as human in the later stages of pregnancy. But before that, even insects like ants and mosquitoes have more consciousness and life. The hypocrisy of those who claim abortion violates the “sanctity of life” and who eat animal products or kill mosquitoes or cockroaches takes my breath away.
A common argument put forward to support the idea that a human life is inherently more valuable than an animal one is that we humans are capable of higher thinking and consciousness. That’s true. We do have this greater ability. But animals have many things we humans do not. Some can fly, some can run fast, others have stunning eyesight, smell, hearing etc. When it comes to raw abilities, humans are actually pretty lacking. Our progress and development is because we’re able to share knowledge and build upon what others have done before us.
Also if mental capability and quality are reasons to place humans on a pedestal, what of those individuals who are mentally retarded, old people with Alzheimer’s, and children? Last I checked, all such people are given the same rights as the rest of us. Shouldn’t we given them fewer rights in line with the animals because of their reduced mental capacity? But that doesn’t happen and it’s hypocritical.
It’s “speciesism” nothing more. The idea that your species is special for no other reason than that you belong to it. You might pull the religious card and say that the bible or whatever puts humans on a higher footing with animals. But if the bible is proof of the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman :). Let’s not bring god into this.
So what do you think? What would you do if you had to pick between your pet’s life and a random human stranger’s life?
I agree with you generally that it is speciesism. I think it’s going to be a long while before we can talk about animal rights without prioritising the human. After all, many (most?) human societies don’t see women as equal to men, and till recently certain races were seen as having primacy over others so talking about animal rights is going to be a far cry.
There may be some profound reason (apart from sheer convenience and habit) that humans have accepted this heirarchy that we are missing. It gets more complicated if you go beyond animal rights and into any living creature including plants. We assume we are not being cruel to plants just because we can’t hear them scream, or they don’t fit out definition of pain.
I have an issue with your repeated use of “bunch of cells”. A human baby at birth has 1 to 5 trillion cells. Halfway through a pregnancy at 20 weeks (legally after which abortion is prohibited, mostly due to danger to mother’s life) I’m assuming the number of cells would be half at that number. At 20 weeks, the feotus looks and acts like a human baby. It moves when prodded from the outside, it curls up, it can feel pain, it responds to familiar voices and loud noises. It’s so developed that my doctor could tell it’s facial features and ensure my foetus didn’t have a cleft lip. Even at 12 weeks, on a sonogram, the foetus looks like a baby. Hardly a “bunch of cells”.
I am pro-choice because I believe that the way the mother’s body is tied to the baby’s means that she should be allowed a say in what happens to it. And there may be reasons she cannot go through with a pregnancy. That said, I believe it should be called what it is which is “killing” just as I believe the killing of animals should be called so and not “culling”.
Also, at least in one book that I read on neuroscience made simple, the human brain – it is huge in size and went through a dramatic growth around the time human beings encountered plains. It is the brain that ensured survival and quick responses developed, I think, not so much community as other animals, stronger than us, also move in packs. Being more intelligent doesn’t justify killing, in my book, however.
In reply to The Bride
Certainly after a point we can treat the baby as partly conscious (not fully human though. Just partly conscious). I have no objections to that. Even then as you point out, the choices of the mother are more important.
All species try their best to survive. We do not kill another human being because we fear that some one else will do the same to us. Thus we developed humanistic rules and regulations. We will not stop killing other animals as long as it is needed for our survival. Everything is decided based on good or bad for survival of the individual and his/her near and dear ones.
In reply to Arun
You’re saying it’s ok to murder someone if you’re sure you won’t be caught?
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad, I am not saying it is ok to murder some one. My point is Laws made by Homo sapiens banning killing between humans must have evolved because of fear of death and extinction of species.
In reply to Arun
I dont think that Laws made by Homo sapiens banning killing between humans must have evolved because of fear of death and extinction of species.
I believe that intelligent homosapiens saw the barbarism in such an act; the violence, the sadness it causes to the victims family friends and clan and the resultant anger and desire for revenge which would surely lead to more killings, leading to fear and insecurity for everyone concerned.
In reply to tp
Lol. I think I said the same thing in simple way -:)
In reply to Arun
:)
i think it requires a very special type of intelligence to realize that all creatures love life and fear death. It also takes intelligence to understand that it is best to receive starch for the production of energy directly from plants that make it with the help of the energy from the sun rather than get it indirectly from the muscles of animals
Humans have plenty to eat- whole grains,vegetables and fruits; nuts and dairy products. We do not have to kill to eat. It is greed and a hedonistic tendency to want more and more variety for our enjoyment that has caused them to want to kill and eat.
In reply to tp
But you’re killing a plant to eat plants right? Or are you only going to eat those that can be harvested without killing the plant. Even then, how do you assume that plucking fruit involves no cruelty to the plant? I’m not being facetious. If we’ve moving to animal rights, on the grounds that just because they are not like us and we don’t understand their communication, then the logical next step would be plant life. Ultimately, even bacteria.
In reply to The Bride
For me, the criteria is consciousness. Plants don’t have a central nervous system. They can’t feel pain. Also, pain would serve no useful purpose for a plant since it can’t move away to avoid it. Pain would be an evolutionary useless feature.
In fact, I’ve often surmised that plants are not really alive at all, but are in fact like non conscious robots or computers.
In reply to bhagwad
I feel you people are being politically correct in trying to decide the criteria for rights of living things. In my opinion criteria is what is best for the survival of our species, nothing else.
In reply to Arun
Arun, not really politcally correct to be suggesting a vegetable might have the same right to life as a human foetus, no?
I get what you’re saying, and to some extent I feel like the discussion is futile because we don’t have the tools or understanding to grapple with it, but for me it’s an ethical dilemma I like to think about.
We assume that prioritising our species in general is best for the survival of our species, but why is that? I understand in the past for evolutionary purposes. But do we have to keep behaving in the same way now that the environment has changed? Is it really in the interest of human society to prioritise human life above all other life? I haven’t really thought this out myself, but interested in if others have.
In reply to The Bride
Bride, there is no need for an ethical dilemma because there is no ethics above survival. Anything living or non living, with or without ability to sense pain , if considered to be a threat to Humans will be eliminated if possible.
In case of human fetus it is slightly different, but mother’s well being should be the priority.
In reply to bhagwad
invertebrates like sponges,star fish,jelly fish,squirts and slimes don’t have a central nervous system also….they are very well considered alive..why?
In reply to Anjali
That’s a good point. If the creature is conscious, I would consider it alive.
Plants cannot be conscious – they don’t have the hardware for it. They can’t feel pain because pain would never have evolved as a function for plants since they can’t move away.
So for me, plants are neither conscious, nor feel pain. As such, they are not really alive.
In reply to bhagwad
plant have shown to react towards the stimulus that causes pain…their cells react in the same way an animal tissue is supposed to respond…experiments of J.C Bose have very well explained the phenomena.
a demonstration of pain is merely not enough…what more important is how one respond if hurt…plants do respond to damage caused caused to them…their mechanism ultimately is ready to replenish the loss…an example of lima bean can be considered…when attacked by spider mites, they secrete some attractants which attract predators of such spider mites…it means they are conscious…they very well respond to chemical stimulus…it’s just this they have mechanism to avoid the situation that are harmful for them.
how will you explain the reaction a “touch me not plant” exhibits when touched?
they also respond to sunlight in the same way every other organism does…When one tree is attacked by pests, it emits chemical signals to neighbouring trees, encouraging them to produce chemical deterrents to that pest, ensuring their own safety…isn’t that consciousness??
they have genetic information preserved in seed…it is now known that plants have, admittedly in different forms, the same innate abilities as those with which animals and humans make sense of their environment. They see, smell, taste, feel and even listen to their surroundings. Even as seeds, ready to germinate, it’s been proven that they are sensitive to as many as twenty different factors – like the season of the year and where the light is coming from – information they need to decide the right time to start growing.
Plants are very well living…hence proved!
In reply to Anjali Singh
No – none of the examples you’ve given are proof of consciousness. It only means that plants are programmed to do those things. For example, a computer can shut down its monitor and hard drive when not in use to save power and preserve its life. Does it mean the computer is conscious? No. Plants work on certain rules – they have no choice in the matter.
Animals have choice. You can’t fully predict what a conscious animal will do. Plants are predictable. Until we have reason to think that their actions are an exercise in free will, plants will continue to remain unconscious.
As of now, the scientific consensus (to which I bow) says that plants do not have consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)
Also:
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/09/episode_61_deadly_straw_primar.html
In reply to bhagwad
computer is programmed by humans…who programmes plant to do so?
In reply to Anjali Singh
Millenia of evolution.
In reply to bhagwad
and evolution works only on living things!
In reply to Anjali Singh
Like I said, plants are only technically living things.
And evolution doesn’t work only on living things. It also works on computer viruses.
In reply to bhagwad
who has created computer viruses…?
humans!!
In reply to Anjali Singh
Once the viruses are in the wild, their evolution is no longer controlled by humans.
Who created the computer virus is not important. Humans will someday able to create life in a test tube.
In reply to bhagwad
I don’t believe a site which says
“This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help us clarify the article”
In reply to Anjali Singh
So pick the sources which seem valid to you and discard the rest.
The parts which support my point have good references.
In reply to bhagwad
You say that ‘Animals Have choice ” i have no choice but to withdraw my hand as quickly as possible when it touches a hot surface; similarly no choice over my eyelids that close reflexively when something enters the eye. I am definitely programmed to do these things. Even in matters that involve mental decisions i ” choose ” according to previous programming ( although on the surface it might appear that i have made a choice )
So i am not sure that a property of being conscious implies ” having choice ” or being predictable. Each living being is programmed differently which makes them unprditable
In reply to tp
Research has shown that there is a genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction. Of those affected some continue to indulge in their addiction and others successfully recover or rather keep it at bay. Clearly, there is a choice!
In reply to Narayanan
Even that ” choice ” is predetermined. We are not computers that react in the same manner. Each human being is programmed in a a unique way depending of countless experiences, thought processes, environmental and genetic factors… but programmed all the same
In reply to Narayanan
Certainly, we’re not computers and have free will brought about by a sense of reasoning, rational or otherwise. There’s nothing predetermined about going out in rain for hours knowing full well that you’ll fall sick the day after, the day of your final exam or some important activity. Given a situation with y possible outcomes based on x variables/constraints, plants are programmed exactly to react in ONE way no matter what combination. Humans are not. We can choose by free will even realizing how crazy and absurd or even detrimental it may be.
In reply to Narayanan
In human beings there are numerous variables; no one human being is conditioned exactly like another. There are conditionings within conditionings that influence the so called ” choice ” . It’s rather like the weather system; no weather forcaster can predict absolutely because of the infinite number of variables that change from moment to moment . Similarly in humans….
In reply to Narayanan
Btw, what a coincidence of synchrony. I replied exactly an hour down to the minute after yours. Funny…
In reply to bhagwad
Not really convinced by your explanation, Bhagwad. This discussion (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43059.0) and the response of Devilmunkey in particular encapsulates what I want to say. Moreover, pain as a criteria (a little different from consciousness) seems more humane than logically satisfying. So if there are creatures that don’t feel pain – like the villian in the Millenium trilogy – they don’t have the right to life?
Again, deciding “life” on the basis of consciousness seems very human-centric and to use your term speciasist. It is our version of consciousness we are prioritising. It seems like an extension of the what-looks-sounds-acts-like-me logic, only with an extended limit.
In reply to The Bride
Ultimately it all comes down to being human centric cause we’re logically incapable of thinking in any other terms. We simply have to make a “best guess”. Otherwise we might view all animals as machines without souls (like Descartes). Only by putting ourselves in their shoes can we feel empathy.
As for plants. Consciousness allows animals to move around and make choices. Like where to go, what to eat etc. A plant on the other hand is very much deterministic. Consciousness would never have evolved in plants since it gives them no survival benefit whatsoever. Consciousness is a very high level function and it won’t evolve unless there is a good reason for it to do so through natural selection.
A conscious plant is no better off than an unconscious one and so would have no greater chance of propagating more like it.
That is why I feel plants are not alive.
In reply to bhagwad
plants are conscious enough to decide which direction to grow…they are very well aware of the geotropism…like we are aware what to eat ,which you think as an example of consciousness…plants also know what essential minerals they need for their well being.
In reply to Anjali Singh
Can you show me a source for your claims?
Plants operate automatically without thought. Like robots.
In reply to bhagwad
haven’t you studied biology…?
In reply to Anjali Singh
Are you able to provide proof or not? You’ve tried to use arguments from authority before and they were equally invalid now as they were then.
There is NO proof whatesover that plants are able to choose anything.
In reply to bhagwad
I don’t need to prove it…a fact is fact..living organisms are classified into five kingdoms and plants being one of the kingdom is enough to prove you wrong..you show me a proof that scientists like Linnaeus,Haeckel,Whittaker were wrong.
In reply to Anjali Singh
Prove you wrong?
Please tell me which biology class teaches us that plants have choice. This is getting ridiculous. What does this have to do with classifications of organisms?
In reply to bhagwad
ya it’s ridiculous as hell…you assume fetus to be a parasite since it fits the definition of a parasite…but you won’t agree that plants are living again because you think so.
I brought up classification part because ONLY living organisms are classified and included in universally accepted Whittaker theory of classification…i.e five kingdom system…till someone discards this theory completely,plants will remain to be considered alive,no matter what you think…you are just a complex protein structure…that has metamorphosed into a human form…!
In reply to bhagwad
ya it’s ridiculous as hell…you assume fetus to be a parasite since it fits the definition of a parasite…but you won’t agree that plants are living even after they fit in the definition..again because YOU think so.
I brought up classification part because ONLY living organisms are classified and included in universally accepted Whittaker theory of classification…i.e five kingdom system…till someone discards this theory completely,plants will remain to be considered alive,no matter what you think.
will you kill an animal put on anasthesia because it can’t feel pain or can’t have choice of its own under that circumstances…?
In reply to Anjali Singh
You can talk about plants being living all you want. None of which means they have any choice or free will.
You don’t have a source for your claims do you?
In reply to bhagwad
I am a Botanist…I study even a minute cell closely…it’s not a kid’s biology everything I have discussed herein is minutely observed by me and other botanist too..
In reply to Anjali Singh
And you’re saying you have proof that plants have choice and free will?
In reply to bhagwad
even seeds have a will to remain under dormancy till they want to…even they have tendency to show negative geotropism if they don’t want to be in sunlight…and forget about choice organism on lower strata never have a choice..
In reply to bhagwad
many plants convert into spores during unfavorable environmental conditions and germinate when favorable conditions return. they have a choice.
plants exhibit every metabolic activity that a living organism is supposed to do…even sexual reproduction…how come they are non living ?
In reply to Anjali
These “features” of life are mere accessories. If a woman (or a man) loses the ability to reproduce, are they not alive anymore?
What are the true essential features of life? Consciousness and/or the ability to feel pain. That is what really matters.
In emergency medical centers all around the world, the consciousness level of a patient is determined through a combination of examinations which is known as the Glasgow Coma Scale. It includes components like Eye opening, Verbal response and Reaction to pain.
No reaction to pain is given a score of 1. A combined score of less than 7 (out of maximum possible 15 of a normal conscious human) is considered as coma, something which signifies that the patient is not conscious.
So would such a patient who is neither conscious nor feels pain be considered dead? Then should such a person be disposed off as a dead body? Are they not alive anymore?
But then you said (@bhagwad) —> “That’s a good point. If the creature is conscious, I would consider it alive.
Plants cannot be conscious – they don’t have the hardware for it. They can’t feel pain because pain would never have evolved as a function for plants since they can’t move away.”
Consciousness and pain are not related to an organisms capability of locomotion. Many Molluscs and Echinoderms (which are incidentally more evolved than the insect which you scoop on paper and throw out instead of killing) are sessile. But they have a much advanced nervous system than insects (Arthropods). In fact, the marine barnacles (of the same class Crustacea as lobsters and crabs) are exclusively sessile.
So according to you, something which cannot move cannot feel pain and cannot be conscious. Hence, it is as good as non-living. Right? So, if plant and sessile animals can be considered inferior (or even non-living) because of their evolution then why not consider other motile animals inferior to humans in terms of evolution of the brain?
The concept of a living organism is defined :-
1) It is composed of a living cell or a combination of cells (which may be from a few to billions in no.)
2) The living cells are derived from pre-existing living cells and may or may not be capable of dividing into new cells
3) Each living cell consists of genetic material (DNA and RNA) and is capable of transferring the genetic material to the next generation of cells
4) Each living cell is capable of synthesizing proteins for its survival and is capable of growth and/or differentiation
5) Each living cell responds to external and internal stimuli and vital functions of an organism occur inside the cell
According to the above criteria, plants are very much living organisms.
In reply to Vinay
Those definitions of life you’ve given are mere superficialities. If we find a life form that doesn’t work on DNA, we have to change it. If we develop AI that is conscious, all the points go out of the window. This is a mere kids biology class definition of life. I would call even computer viruses “life” in the sense that they’re just as “living” as real world viruses in that they evolve, infect etc etc.
We have to ask – what is the true essence of life? It’s not related to a bodily shape or a bodily function. It has to relate to a function of the mind alone. To me, cells, plants, and yes – even brain dead humans – are essentially robots. For me, consciousness is what makes life special as opposed to rocks and stones.
I looked it up, and many molluscs can very much move: http://library.thinkquest.org/28751/review/animals/6.html. As such, pain is certainly very important for them.
You do agree that pain for a completely sessile object is evolutionarily useless and would never have been developed right?
In reply to bhagwad
No. I never agreed that pain for a completely sessile organism is evolutionarily useless. I was questioning your logic on it.
What you term as mere kids biology is what we know of biological science as of now. The things you suggested are mere hypothetical ideas, which may be possible in future, but cannot be used to formulate biological theories according to present realities.
You said —> “If we find a life form that doesn’t work on DNA, we have to change it. If we develop AI that is conscious, all the points go out of the window.”
The catch word in your logic is ‘IF’.
So if I say that in course of evolution, humans will be able to fly (which actually may happen in a billion years), should I be able to assert that even in present times, humans should be able to fly to be classified as humans?
Obviously we will change the criteria when humans will be able to fly (or for that matter when and if we find a life form that doesn’t work on DNA). But till that happens, we will have to abide by the currently available facts and criteria.
I never said all molluscs are sessile. I said “many” Molluscs and Echinoderms. Many =/= all. And though those sessile Molluscs cannot move, they do have a well developed nervous system (more developed than the average insect you are so sensitive towards).
And so you do agree that an unconscious person can be killed? Or have you changed your stance from lack of consciousness and pain to brain-dead. Because brain dead is not equal to unconscious. An unconscious person may not be brain-dead, but a brain-dead person will be invariably unconscious.
Also, the function of the mind is again the combined function of many neurons (nerve cells). No function of the body is possible without the function of its cells. If we have an electronic robot which is composed of many computers, can move and can decide and perform tasks on its own, should we accept it to be alive?
In reply to Vinay
If you don’t agree that pain is useless for an organism that cannot move, perhaps you can share you opinion as to what it’s use will be?
As for the definition of life, here is a snippet from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[19][20][21] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[22] [23] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.
I repeat – the essential features of life are nothing to do with the physical world. You can choose to define life in pure biological terms if you want, but that definition has no interest for me or anyone else who is seriously trying to understand what life is.
If a person is unconscious and there is no hope of them regaining it, then they’re simply not “there” anymore. It’s not an ethical question for me.
In reply to Vinay
And by the way, why do you think that high school students, graduates, post graduates and even research scholars all around the world are being made to study and believe false and cooked-up facts which you term as ‘kids biology’?
In reply to Vinay
Because they’re interested in a functional definition of life. The philosophical definition of life however is another matter entirely.
In reply to Vinay
Ok. I’ll begin with your first question regarding whether pain is or not useless for an organism which cannot move.
The marine barnacles which I mentioned in my first comment (which are also Arthropods just like those insects which you seem to care for), have an extremely well developed nervous system. A good example of such barnacles is Balanus (also known as ‘rock barnacle’) which is attached to rocks on the sea bed.
The body of Balanus is surrounded by a calcareous shell comprising of six plates. Whenever the body of the animal is irritated/bitten by another animal, it quickly folds up the plates of its shell to protect itself. The nerves in the body of this animal are arranged in a ladder-like manner connected to a central ganglion so that stimulus at any point on the body can quickly spread and result in folding of all the shell plates simultaneously, thereby protecting the animal.
Having said that, I want to know why you are so peculiar about pain amongst all the various nervous sensations perceived by an individual to be useful for itself. How does a visceral pain sensation of an animal which is completely motile (like the intestinal colic perceived by a lion in the jungle) help it in any way? Pain is just a type of sensation. It only tells the brain about some untoward and unpleasant changes in a part of the body. How does a stomach ache help you apart from you running to a doctor? Would it help you if you were on a secluded place?
Now I come to your reference to the article you linked.
Yes, as it says life is a process not a substance, but the discussion we were having was about living and non-living organisms. And, though life is a process, a living organism is one which exhibits life. In other words, a living organism is a physical substance that exhibits the process of life. And the process called life can only be possible in entities called living cells (which are physical).
But if you are referring to spiritual (and maybe religious) aspects of life, then I’m afraid I’m not too well informed about those.
And while you referred to that article, I hope you must have read the very first line of the very first paragraph of that very article which says —>
“Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4]”
“Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.”
Please show me which of these criteria do plants NOT exhibit.
And though I do not consider wikipedia to be the ultimate correct source of reference, I’ll still discuss it as you pointed out.
And lastly, about your closing sentence, the catch word in it is ‘hope’. If a normal and healthy person may become unconscious (which may be due to a variety of reasons, frivolous or grave), that doesn’t mean we label him of not being ‘there’. And it cannot be said with 100% certainty whether or when he will regain consciousness (which again depends upon the cause). So you cannot just consider such a person as dead.
In reply to Vinay
No, I’m not talking about the spiritual or religious aspects of life. I’m an atheist and don’t believe in god. But I’m interested in the phenomenon of life (as I assume almost everyone is).
Now coming to specifics of life. Viruses have neither metabolism, nor homeostasis, and neither do they grow or reproduce on their own. Yet despite what other may say, a biologist will call it life. Viruses are essentially strands of RNA surrounded by an organic substance like lipids for example.
My point is that cells are just one mechanism whereby life can be carried. You may say that alien life forms do not exist, but no rational person will discount the fact that there’s a very high chance that it does. Are we so keen to be pedantic that we’re not remotely interested in defining life in non earth terms?
I certainly am interested.
If you think about it, when you define life in terms of cells etc, you’re only talking about the hardware which is used to run the software of consciousness. It’s like trying to define Windows 7 and you respond by telling me the system requirements like the CPU speed, minimum RAM etc. Windows 7 certainly needs those requirements, but I’m not interested in the hardware when I’m trying to explain what Windows 7 is.
Those who try and define life in terms of the biological body are doing the same thing. While it’s all well and good to describe what hardware is necessary for life, it’s the software that I’m really interested in.
Finally, I’m not getting into the specifics of why a person may not regain consciousness. All I’m saying is that if there’s no chance of that happening, they’re as good as dead for me.
In reply to bhagwad
Firstly, viruses are never classified as living anywhere in biology. Specially because they do not fulfill the criteria of being composed of cells. But they do have the genetic material that functions as that of any living cell when it enters another living cell which provides it all the constituents it requires to metabolize and replicate.
And viruses may be either DNA or RNA surrounded by protein (and not lipids), but that’s not the point. No biologist classifies a virus as living as long as it has not entered a cell.
Obviously there is a chance that alien life does exist. And maybe it is composed of things entirely different from the cells of organisms we see on earth. But as long as we don’t have the proof that it does, we cannot dismiss the proven facts and criteria which have been validated to be considered as living here on earth. Just like I said, until humans start flying, we cannot include flying to be a criteria to be classified as a human. Can we?
If you are interested to find about non-earth forms of life, that is more than welcome. In fact people have been trying to do the same for years now. But just because there is a possibility of finding something absolutely different doesn’t mean we change the existing criteria in anticipation.
About your Windows 7 example. Once again you are confusing between the process and the organism. Windows 7 is a process that runs on hardware. Life is a process that runs on cells. So, a living organism is one which exhibits the process of life based on cells, just like a computer is a machine which exhibits Windows 7 which runs on hardware.
But where exactly is the software of Windows 7 located? It is stored in the storage media (hardware) of the computer. Just like the software which runs life (the genetic material) is stored in the nucleus of each cell.
I get your point that you want to define Windows 7. But can it be functional unless it is run on some hardware? Similarly, life is functional only when it runs on its hardware (cells).
So, though we may not be able to define life (as you say) but we can (and have to) define living organisms on the basis of cells. Just like you cannot define a computer by just describing Windows 7.
And yes, Windows 7 is after all, a software which contains commands to control, inter-connect and co-ordinate the functions of all the hardware components of a computer. It is not a separate functional entity in itself. That is, if you don’t have the hardware, Windows 7 is redundant. You cannot do a thing with it.
As regarding the unconscious person, as I said before, nothing can be said when he would regain consciousness. It could be after an hour or after 6 months. The only certainty where he can never be expected to regain consciousness is when he is brain-dead. I hope you get the difference between unconscious and brain-dead.
In reply to Vinay
You’re right when you say that without hardware you cannot run Windows 7. But Windows 7 nonetheless exists as a concept independent of the hardware itself.
I’ll give you a better example. Music. The same tune (say happy birthday) can be played on a violin, the piano, or the guitar. But “Happy Birthday” as a song exists as a concept regardless of the instrument which is playing it.
Imagine a place where the people have only one instrument – the violin. Defining life in terms of cells is like trying to define “Happy Birthday” (or music in general) in terms of the only instrument people are familiar with.
Now here’s my main point. Even if people know only about the violin, they still have the concept of music as something separate and distinct from the mere instrument it is playing on at the time.
Life is like music. The body and the brain is the instrument. Music arises from the body in the form of consciousness. But music as a concept is separate and distinct from the instrument that plays it. Similarly life as a concept is separate and distinct from the hardware processes that generate it.
One other thing. Definitions shape the way we think about things. So if we define life as cells (actually a living body since as you see, life itself cannot be defined in terms of the instrument), then you’re automatically making a definite statement that there is no life outside the earth – that it is impossible for any other kind of life to exist.
So if your kid asks you “Dad, is there life outside the earth that is not cell based?”, your answer cannot be “I don’t know”. It has to be “No!” because you have chosen to define life in such terms. Circular reasoning.
Definitions are not meant to merely describe what is immediately in front of our nose. Definitions are meant to capture the essence of that which is being defined. And the essence of life isn’t the hardware any more than the essence of music is the specific instrument on which it is being played.
In reply to bhagwad
Ok. First something I missed to mention in my previous comment.
If we try to define Windows 7, can we define it as ‘a program that controls and co-ordinates the electrical input, thermostat and compressor of a refrigerator’?
No. Because Windows 7 is essentially defined in the terms of the functions it does with the hardware of a computer (CPU, RAM, HDD, etc.).
Similarly, can you give me an example of life apart from organisms that are composed of cells?
I never said of defining life as cells. I agreed with your view of life being a process. But it is such a process that requires cells to function.
As about your example of music and musical instruments, you consolidated my reasoning.
For example, playing the ‘Happy Birthday’ song either on a violin or a piano or a guitar will result in the same action (production of sound) but with different frequencies.
Can you produce the music of the ‘Happy Birthday’ tune (or any musical sound) by performing any action on say, a microwave owen or an electrical light bulb or an electric heater?
No you cannot. So, while the musical instruments may be different in composition, but they all have the capability to produce sound (however different). Similarly, plants and animals have different compositions of their cells, but still life can only be sustained on those organisms which have cells and are able to carry out functions that life requires (like metabolism, reproduction, energy production & consumption, etc.).
For music, you need the production of sound — just like for life you need metabolism, reproduction, energy production & consumption, etc.
So, only those instruments which can function to produce musical sounds can be called musical instruments — and only those organisms (composed of cells) which can sustain functions of life can be called living organisms.
So, while music, Windows 7, or life, are separate and distinct entities, music is about sound energy production with different frequencies and pitch, Windows 7 is about transfer of electrons between particular hardware in a particular fashion and life is about the complex combination of various functions brought about by cells.
And about the concept of definitions, defining life or living organisms can be done only with respect to those found on earth. No one claims that the definition of life includes all probable non-earth life forms as well.
So, if a kid would ask me whether or not life outside earth is cell-based, I would rather answer with a “We can only be in a position to answer once we find such a non-earth life form” instead of giving the kid a definite answer which takes away from him his power to be inquisitive and clearing it out for himself as he grows.
All forms of science (including biological sciences) are not strictly definite, but update themselves as new discoveries are made during the passage of time.
In reply to Vinay
I feel we’re disagreeing on semantics. I agree that not all hardware can support life. Just as a microwave can’t play music. And Windows 7 cannot run on a calculator. No disagreement there.
But even the language you use proves my point. For example you said “Life can only be sustained on…”. That means even you are viewing the hardware as only a container or a support platform for life.
No one (including you) would define music in terms of a specific instrument. You may instead call it a harmonious mixture of vibrations. How those vibrations are caused and which instrument causes them are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. When a person asks “What is music?” I can guarantee you that they’re not interested in learning about the hardware.
Similarly, you ask anyone (even the programmers) about what Windows 7 is, I can guarantee you they will not refer even once to CPUs, RAM etc. They will not say “Windows 7 is a coordinator for CPUs RAM that performs operations on bits and bytes”. No one is interested in the hardware functionalities that run Windows 7. Instead, they will define Windows 7 in terms of software by explaining its look and feel, how it is different from Windows Vista etc.
Now coming to the conversation with a kid, here is how it will progress:
Kid: “What is life”
You: (give your definition about cells, water, reproduction etc)
Kid: But that means no life can exist outside of earth
You: “We can only be in a position to answer once we find such a non-earth life form”
Kid: “But you’ve already defined life in such a way that precludes it from existing anywhere else!
You: No – when we find life elsewhere we will revise our definitions
Kid: But how will you know non-earth life when you see it? How will you say “Ok, this is a new life form. Now let us redefine life”
You: We will see if it moves, if it can feel pain, if it responds etc etc.”
Kid: So you mean that is the criteria for life?!
You: (not sure what you will say here)
Do you see my point?
In reply to Vinay
Here’s another interesting article on how various academics have tried to lock on to a definition of life: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/226/defining-life
As you can see, they’re interested not so much in the specifics of what kind of containers life needs, but life itself.
In reply to bhagwad
You are missing a basic point. I never said defining music would require mentioning the hardware. My point is, music is about sound energy. Windows 7 is about a set of commands. Life is about a set of functions.
You say —> “Instead, they will define Windows 7 in terms of software by explaining its look and feel, how it is different from Windows Vista etc.”
But how do you make anyone understand how Windows 7 is different from Windows Vista if that person doesn’t know what is Windows Vista in the first place? How does the look and feel of a software describe what function it does? How are you going to describe Windows 7 to a person who does not know it works on a set of hardware?
I again repeat, life is a process that can only be sustained on the specific cells which are made to carry out functions that constitute life. Life cannot be defined or described as a separate entity without mentioning the actions that constitute it. And how are those actions possible? Only through cells.
As about the hypothetical discussion with the kid you mentioned —>
“Kid: “But you’ve already defined life in such a way that precludes it from existing anywhere else!”
Whereas in my previous comment I clearly mentioned that “No one claims that the definition of life includes all probable non-earth life forms as well.”
And response and pain are neither considered nor will be considered the sole criteria for defining life even when some non-earth life is discovered. A person under anaesthesia does not show reflexes or experiences pain. Do we not consider him alive? If you still consider him alive, then why?
By the way, you have still not given me an example of a life form that is conscious, experiences pain, moves about, but is not composed of cells.
In reply to Vinay
To answer your question, I’m forced to ask another:
Let me take the place of the kid and ask you the question myself.
How will you recognize non earth based life when you see it?
Try defining a circle. The locus of points at a fixed distance from the center. That definition precludes all other shapes and forms. You can’t say “If I see a circle that doesn’t fit this definition, then I’ll change my definition of the circle”. No! If something doesn’t fit the definition of a circle, it is by definition not a circle! You cannot change your definition of a circle later on.
So just to be clear, “How will your recognize non earth based life when you’re confronted with it? What criteria will you use?”
In reply to Vinay
A hypothetical discussion between you and a kid —>
Kid : What is Windows 7?
You : It is a software developed by Microsoft which is better in looks and performance than Windows Vista.
Kid : But what is Windows Vista?
You : It is a software with the help of which you can browse the internet, watch movies, hear songs, do calculations, write notes and letters, play games and many other things.
Kid : Oh. Play games too? Show me.
You : Ok. Come to the living room where the computer is kept.
Kid : Why the living room? I want to see it now. Show me here.
You : (not sure what you will say here)
Do you see my point?
In reply to Vinay
I can easily describe Windows Vista or Windows 7 to a kid without showing them a computer. No problem. Similarly, you should be able to define life without pointing to an actual living creature.
Basic question I’m asking you: How will you recognize non earth life when you see it?
In reply to Vinay
By the way, it’s very easy to define Windows 7 to a person who doesn’t know that it works on hardware. Just see the webpage of Windows 7: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/home
The hardware is not even mentioned.
But this is a side point. My main question is the one I asked above: How will you recognize non earth based life when it doesn’t fit your “cell based” criteria?
In reply to bhagwad
Sorry I don’t understand how you will easily describe Windows to a kid (or any other person not knowing about computers) without showing them Windows itself. What I wanted to know was can you describe Windows just by your words without mentioning anything about computers and hardware?
The link you mentioned can only be used by someone already browsing the internet on a computer or an internet enabled device. So that doesn’t answer my question.
How can you even describe the looks and appearance of Windows to a kid who does not know about computers? Even if you manage to tell him about the icons, taskbar, etc. on the desktop where would you ask him to see it to recognize it?
As about your question on non-earth life forms, you got me cornered there. I think I’ll apply the present criteria of life to asses whether it is alive or not.
But here’s another hypothetical scenario —>
Suppose a strange UFO lands on earth and we see two strange creatures appearing from it. They are moving about comfortably. They are roughly the size of a cow. They have 7 appendages. One spot and an opening at one end of the body which we consider equivalent to an eye and a mouth. They make strange sounds when we try to communicate with them. But when we strike them with a blunt object they don’t show any response (they don’t seem to have pain). We capture them and in due course of time, they multiply and grow.
Now, would you consider these as alive?
And you have still not answered my question about an example of a life form that is conscious, experiences pain, moves about, but is not composed of cells. Something which led you to think that cells should not be an essential criteria to classify living organisms.
In reply to Vinay
Let me frame the above scenario the other way round. If you have a robot (for example just like the character played by Arnold in the movie ‘The terminator’) and modify it such that it responds to pain as well, then would you consider such a robot to be alive? Since it will be capable of moving about, conscious by communicating with you and even responsive to pain.
In reply to Vinay
Pain is only one indication of life. Lack of pain does not mean lack of consciousness. It’s like A=>B but A’ !=> B. In terms of set theory, taking the contrapositive it means that B’=>A’. Or in other words, if there is no consciousness, there is no pain.
In your Terminator example, I already consider that robot to be alive even though it didn’t feel pain. Lack of pain does not imply lack of consciousness. But presence of pain implies presence of consciousness as per the logic explained above.
Your definition of life involving cells is like requiring the kid to not only know about computers but also about CPUs, RAM, and motherboards. Because your definition of life is so granular and specific (cells). But Windows 7 can run on an AMD chip, an Intel chip or any other chip following the x86 architecture.
Now my mother knows nothing about the specific hardware of a computer. She has never heard of x86. Yet she knows what Windows 7 is.
So I’m more ok if you describe life in connection with hardware in broad general terms (but again, the hardware has to be just one of the criteria). But not in terms of cells and other granular functions. Because you don’t need to know anything about cells in order to grasp the concept of life. People knew what life was even before the concept of cells existed.
You say you’ll apply the present criteria of life (cells etc) to any other life form. So if it moves, thinks, talks etc. but doesn’t have cells it will not be life in your opinion?
In your scenario, the fact that they came from a UFO would be strong enough circumstantial evidence that it’s life. Can you perhaps give me another scenario?
To answer your final question about an example of life that doesn’t use cells, I’ve already explained that it’s clear in my mind that software doesn’t have to be defined in terms of specific hardware. General hardware, yes. Specific granular hardware, no.
In reply to Vinay
Another interesting point – we are beginning to obtain the computational capacity to simulate the human brain programmatically. IBM for example has already recreated 4.5% of the brain: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-ibm-simulates-4-percent-human-brain-all-of-cat-brain
But according to your definition, no matter how sophisticated the program becomes, no matter if it laughs, cries, feels pain, fears death etc. it will never be called life because it doesn’t have cells and metabolism.
If you say “I’ll change my definition of life later”, then I ask you again – how will you know that something is alive before you change your definition. Interesting no?
In reply to Vinay
You are still dodging my question. When I specifically ask you to give me one example of life which doesn’t use cells, you talk of hardware and software. Seems good to argue but still doesn’t answer the question.
About lack of pain and lack of consciousness, you again dodged a question I asked you before. What about a person who is under anaesthesia and neither is conscious and nor feels pain? Should he be considered dead?
You said —> “But Windows 7 can run on an AMD chip, an Intel chip or any other chip following the x86 architecture.”
So it still needs a chip to run. It cannot run on a piece of paper can it? Just like life requires a plant cell or an animal cell or a human cell. If you can assure me that Windows can be made to run on a piece of paper, I’ll happily accept that life doesn’t require cells.
About the example you gave of your mother not knowing anything about hardware of a computer. Though she still knows what Windows is. That’s a valid point. But obviously she would know Windows is related to and workable on computers and not something that can be used on the refrigerator.
Yes, people knew what life was before the concept of cells existed. But they obviously didn’t (couldn’t) know about it before cells themselves existed. That’s my point.
I shouldn’t say I’ll ‘change’ my definition of life when I see a different form of life that doesn’t use cells. It would be only proper to add the new criteria to the existing ones to be included in the definition. So if such a cell-less life form is found, the present life forms those have cells would not cease to be living altogether.
Just like I said before, it is like saying, what IF the humans of the future can fly. So we should not consider ourselves as humans now because we cannot fly.
The animal kingdom (even plant kingdom) is classified into different aggregations of species which have different characteristics. If you consider a small insect to be living, then it should be included amongst the animal kingdom. And so would you. But do you think you share all the characters which an insect has? No. That is why as each group of animals evolved and differed from others, separate classes were made which included animals sharing similar characters.
So, if a new life form is found, the very definition of all life forms need not be changed. Just that a new class would be created to incorporate the new found life form with it’s special characters.
So it doesn’t mean I’ll be changing the entire definition later.
About the IBM program you mentioned, even if they manage to recreate 100% of the human brain, it would still be pure information. How would that information (thoughts and emotions) be executed in the form of actions without a body? Or do you mean to say anything that has/stores information/emotions can be called alive?
Also, the human brain is just not an aggregation of neurons and synapses. If it were so, then the brain of a newborn would be identical to that of the adult phase of that newborn. The cells of the brain continuously undergo changes including the formation of new synapses for memory and apoptosis (destruction) of other neurons or synapses that cause forgetfulness.
In reply to Vinay
I didn’t realize while posting my comment that it is being submitted under my roommate’s name. He seems to have commented on your post in my absence which I just noticed.
In reply to Vinay
I can’t give you an example, but I don’t have to. In mathematics there are many ways of proving something wrong. Providing an opposing example is just one technique. The fact that I don’t have an example of non cell based life is entirely irrelevant if I can find other ways (such as thought experiments) to get my point across.
As for your anasthesia patient, yes. They are dead for that period of time. And they come alive again. What’s the confusion here?
Windows 7 does not necessarily need an x86 processor chip to run. You can run it on any hardware that exposes the right interface. Like the Mac for example. What is your definition of “chip”?
Also, you’re creating a strawman argument when you say that you’ll accept my view if I can show that Windows 7 can run on a piece of paper. I never made the claim that life (or music, or Windows 7) can run on any old hardware. There are certain types that it can run on, but there are an infinite number of such types of machines. You on the other hand are saying that it can only run on one type. Which has no logic to it.
This time it is you who are dodging the issue. I’ve shown you that your granular definition of life is akin to my mother needing to know about CPUs. If you change you sentence from a “cell based body” to “Any body that can support life”, then we’re in agreement. As long as you keep talking about “cells”, then you can’t talk about general PCs anymore. You have to talk about specific hardware components like CPU and RAM.
“Just like I said before, it is like saying, what IF the humans of the future can fly. “
If humans of the future can fly, they are NOT humans anymore, but another species. Humans CANNOT fly no matter what happens in the future. Because we have already defined what it is to be human (homo sapiens).
“So if such a cell-less life form is found, the present life forms those have cells would not cease to be living altogether.”
How will you identify a cell-less life form is my question if you’ve started out by defining life as only being cell based?
“So, if a new life form is found”
Again, please tell me HOW you would know it is a new life form if it’s sitting in front of you? This is the essential question that needs answering.
“About the IBM program you mentioned, even if they manage to recreate 100% of the human brain, it would still be pure information.”
Not just information but a specific type of processing as well. Just thinking or being conscious is enough. But you need to have some type of capable hardware to run life of course. And cell based life is one type of hardware.
Also, the human brain is just not an aggregation of neurons and synapses.
Yes, the arrangement matters. There is no disputing that. Not ALL arrangements are valid arrangements. But there are an infinite number of arrangements that are valid.
In reply to Vinay
Bhagwad: When a person asks “What is music?” I can guarantee you that they’re not interested in learning about the hardware.
There is no way one can even conceive of what music is without hardware.It remains in the head unexpressed and no one except the ” thinker ” will know about it. It is only through the hardware that it may be expressed – so the hardware is very relevant when describing ” life ‘
In reply to tp
Even a person who has never seen a musical instrument in their lives will be able to appreciate music. It is very much possible to listen to and even become an expert in music without knowing anything about hardware.
In reply to bhagwad
No one can produce music let alone appreciate it without the help of an instrument that can produce sound. Music can be described and learned in theory but can only be experienced as a perception when sound is produced. The same goes for life.
Why are we all so hung up to find a definition of ” life ” ?
But i like the ” entropy ” concept best so far. Thats a good one. ” Life ” does seem to prevent decay
i understand Windows 7 ONLY because i use it on my Computer
Isn’t it strange that when some ” one “dies, no one grieves for the trillions of cells that functioned harmoniously to keep that some ” one ” alive
In reply to tp
Yes, that is the point. It is those trillions of cells that function collectively to keep an organism alive.
A wonderful example of interdependence – those trillions of cells depended upon the organism to get them the oxygen from the air and to expel the products of metabolism without which they would ” die ”
Coming back to the Windows 7 analogy. Windows looks sadly at a computer that has crashed and says ” i want to live – please don’t die ” ! Rather like certain human beings at their death bed …
Of what use is Windows 7 to itself or anyone unless it can ” reveal ” itself through the computer; something like ” life ” and ” living ‘things. Could we redefine life to imply consciousness ?