XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: Kenito@Benito.naw   
      
   On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 14:03:03 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"    
   wrote:   
      
   >Kenito Benito,    
   >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:40:26 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"    
   >>> Andrew,    
   >   
   >>>> Living things are able to carry out bio-chemical reactions   
   >>>> in the process of their metabolism. They grow, reproduce   
   >>>> and respond to stimuli   
   >>>   
   >>> Also they are collective, and (except the autotrophs)   
   >>> they survive through killing or injuring living things   
   >>> from other species and eating their flesh.   
   >>   
   >>     Most certainly can. There are herbivores; life forms that eat   
   >> only plant matter. I think elephants are one such life form. There are   
   >> others, of course.   
   >   
   >The semi-figurative flesh above includes plant matter as well.   
      
        Plant matter isn't animal flesh.   
      
   >The way life takes energy from nature is arranged so that lower   
   >species function as accumulators storing energy in the forms   
   >suited for consumption by higher species. From observation of   
   >life on earth one can see similar living things are multiple   
   >within a species, and one more fact is that survival of higher   
   >species suggests their consumption of lower species.   
   >   
      
        I was merely pointing out that the consumption of animal flesh is   
   not necessary for life itself. It is very common but, except for a few   
   species, Felidae for example, eating of animals isn't required.   
      
   >This observation hints that a desire to make life artificially   
   >by design may be non-implementable in the form of creating one   
   >or few living things.   
   >   
      
        If this life can consume animal and/or plant matter and use it   
   for its various needs, it can fit the definition of life. At least in   
   the example you use above.   
      
   >The autotrophs are of special significancy, as they are the   
   >kind taking energy directly from non-organic sources.   
      
        The sun (photoautotrophs) or oxidation (chemoautotrophs).   
      
   >This kind   
   >includes inter alia   
      
        Duke Leto's and Lady Jessica's daughter?   
        OW! Who threw that? :)   
      
   >living organism very simple in biological   
   >sense, but even for them artificial models haven't been created.   
   >E.g. artificial reproduction of photosynthesis would be a   
   >scientific sea change, but this topic is less catchy, more boring,   
   >less attractive to stock investors.   
      
        Agreed.   
      
   --   
   Kenito Benito   
   Strategic Writer,   
   Psychotronic World Dominator.   
   And FEMA camp counselor.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)