XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: os333@netc.eu   
      
   Kenito Benito,    
   > On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 14:03:03 +0300, "Oleg Smirnov"    
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >> 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.   
      
   Indeed living organisms are adaptive. Wolves can eat plants   
   if hungry enough. And I am not intended to agitate against the   
   cult of vegetarianism, but simply notice the way it typically   
   happens in natural life, and what logics one can derive from   
   observation of wild nature.   
      
   Also if you accept Darwinian evolution then you have to agree   
   that what is typical in natural life has become so because it   
   contributed to better survival.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   We have no functional definition of life (see upstream). And   
   it would be unreasonable to be too certain. Still, observation   
   of the earthly life makes one suspect that a life may require   
   multiplicity in the very basics while some one separate living   
   thing is [always] an incomplete life.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)