The main point i think to take out of this is to not be too focused on what people exactly are labeling as life or not and instead focus on the actual content of the definitions. While I took my approach more broad, one could easily do the opposite with their definition of life and take a narrower approach, as long as we are able to explain what we are talking about. If we find some form of self replicating anything on another planet, it doesn't matter if one definition includes it as life and another excludes it it doesn't change the significance of the discovery and similarly just because something could self replicate and I labeled it as life, doesn't mean it somehow contains all of the qualities that we would find the classical definition of life in biology. In the Video example wit ht he Star Trek cyborg, assuming that they don't self replicate, it wouldn't fall under the definition of life that I proposed. However this would have no influence on the decision on weather it would receive human rights or not since my definition of life has no bearing on intelligence/consciousness/ any other factor that I would argue would be required for rights. As long we are careful to clearly define what we are talking about it doesn't really matter where we draw the line for what we consider life or not.
Recent comments