Comment

Comment by dr_dshiv

> it just isn't true that mitochondria are alive by our currently accepted definition of alive. This is an old debate in biology that was settled years ago.

Sorry, but that’s an overreach. There are many “accepted” definitions” of life across different scientific fields. According to Wikipedia, there are at least 123 definitions of life — and there is not scientific consensus. Mitochondria are alive based on some definitions and not alive based on others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Expecting life to have total autonomy in self-sustainability is absurd. Otherwise somatic cells or even people would be not alive.

And the argument that mitochondria are not alive because they can’t encode all their own proteins — well, I’ll point out that humans can’t produce all amino acids, either. As a thought experiment, if humans couldn’t produce a certain essential protein — and had to rely on a symbiont, would that mean humans weren’t alive?

Finally I’ll point out that Mitochondria can be healthy or flourishing — and they can be sick and die. How can something that is not alive, die?

It’s ok to argue for a narrow definition. But please don’t present this argument as though you are the defender of clear scientific conclusions. There simply isn’t consensus on this across the sciences.

parent dr_dshiv 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton