Sarah Walker

And these kind of examples are really good at showing that because it's like the thing that you would have thought is the living organism is now dead, except that it has another living organism that's piloting it. So the two of them together are are alive in some sense, but they're, you know, now in this kind of weird symbiotic relationship that's taking the sand to its death.

I think we have to get rid of the notion of an individual as being relevant. And this is really difficult because, you know, a lot of the ways that we think about life, like the fundamental unit of life is the cell. Individuals are alive. But we don't think about how how gray that distinction is. So, for example, you might consider

I think we have to get rid of the notion of an individual as being relevant. And this is really difficult because, you know, a lot of the ways that we think about life, like the fundamental unit of life is the cell. Individuals are alive. But we don't think about how how gray that distinction is. So, for example, you might consider

I think we have to get rid of the notion of an individual as being relevant. And this is really difficult because, you know, a lot of the ways that we think about life, like the fundamental unit of life is the cell. Individuals are alive. But we don't think about how how gray that distinction is. So, for example, you might consider

you know, self-reproduction to be the most defining feature of life. A lot of people do actually like, you know, one of these standard different definitions that a lot of people may feel like to use in astrobiology is life as a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, which I was once quoted as agreeing with. And I was really offended because I hate that definition.

you know, self-reproduction to be the most defining feature of life. A lot of people do actually like, you know, one of these standard different definitions that a lot of people may feel like to use in astrobiology is life as a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, which I was once quoted as agreeing with. And I was really offended because I hate that definition.

you know, self-reproduction to be the most defining feature of life. A lot of people do actually like, you know, one of these standard different definitions that a lot of people may feel like to use in astrobiology is life as a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, which I was once quoted as agreeing with. And I was really offended because I hate that definition.

I think it's terrible. And I think it's terrible that people use it. I think like every word in that definition is actually wrong as a descriptor of life.

I think it's terrible. And I think it's terrible that people use it. I think like every word in that definition is actually wrong as a descriptor of life.

I think it's terrible. And I think it's terrible that people use it. I think like every word in that definition is actually wrong as a descriptor of life.

Yeah, I know. If you want to make me angry, you can pretend I said that and believed it.

Yeah, I know. If you want to make me angry, you can pretend I said that and believed it.

Yeah, I know. If you want to make me angry, you can pretend I said that and believed it.

Yeah, they're all interesting words. Um, And, you know, together they sound really smart and they sound like they box in what life is, but you can use any of the words individually and you can come up with counterexamples that don't fulfill that property. The self-sustaining one is really interesting thinking about humans, right? Like we're not self-sustaining. We're dependent on societies.

Yeah, they're all interesting words. Um, And, you know, together they sound really smart and they sound like they box in what life is, but you can use any of the words individually and you can come up with counterexamples that don't fulfill that property. The self-sustaining one is really interesting thinking about humans, right? Like we're not self-sustaining. We're dependent on societies.

Yeah, they're all interesting words. Um, And, you know, together they sound really smart and they sound like they box in what life is, but you can use any of the words individually and you can come up with counterexamples that don't fulfill that property. The self-sustaining one is really interesting thinking about humans, right? Like we're not self-sustaining. We're dependent on societies.

And so, you know, I find it paradoxical that, you know, it might be that societies, because they're self-sustaining units, are now more alive than individuals are. And that could be the case, but I still think we have some property associated with life. I mean, that's the thing that we're trying to describe. So that one's quite hard. And in general, you know, no organism is really self-sustaining.

And so, you know, I find it paradoxical that, you know, it might be that societies, because they're self-sustaining units, are now more alive than individuals are. And that could be the case, but I still think we have some property associated with life. I mean, that's the thing that we're trying to describe. So that one's quite hard. And in general, you know, no organism is really self-sustaining.

And so, you know, I find it paradoxical that, you know, it might be that societies, because they're self-sustaining units, are now more alive than individuals are. And that could be the case, but I still think we have some property associated with life. I mean, that's the thing that we're trying to describe. So that one's quite hard. And in general, you know, no organism is really self-sustaining.

They always require an environment. So being self-sustaining is coupled in some sense to the world around you. We don't live in a vacuum. So that part's already challenging. And then you can go to chemical system. I don't think that's good either. I think there's a confusion because life emerges in chemistry, that life is chemical. I don't think life is chemical.