3 ms·

> 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. So

> 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 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.

meneton 2y ago
I agree I didn't phrase that right. It was a short cut. There has been debate over whether mitochondria can be called alive since at least 1890. For many years the vast majority of mitochondrial biologists have avoided the binary alive/not alive classification because there is a spectrum of 'livingness' and we can draw the line anywhere we like. Picking a different line position is not scientific, it is semantics. What do we mean by the term 'alive'? The article presented a profound new way of viewing the living state of mitochondria that was going to transform the world. It said nothing new, and failed to make any reference to the long term debate. But it was a nicely written interesting article and mitochondria are going to be hugely important therapeutic area in the future.

meneton 2y ago

I agree I didn't phrase that right. It was a short cut. There has been debate over whether mitochondria can be called alive since at least 1890. For many years the vast majority of mitochondrial biologists have avoided the binary alive/not alive classification because there is a spectrum of 'livingness' and we can draw the line anywhere we like. Picking a different line position is not scientific, it is semantics. What do we mean by the term 'alive'? The article presented a profound new way of viewing the living state of mitochondria that was going to transform the world. It said nothing new, and failed to make any reference to the long term debate. But it was a nicely written interesting article and mitochondria are going to be hugely important therapeutic area in the future.