(Sorry that I'm on mobile, so I can't make a good formated question (no links). I will add them later. Just can't resist the urge to ask)
In the recent hot question about whether mitochondrial is alive or dead (it's technically dead), the top answers don't only explain whether it is dead or not, but also further explain why it doesn't matter: they just do what they need to do. This provokes me a question:
Q: Biologically, do life and death matter? Is the functionality of something the only thing that life cares?
We human are scare of death. Because of that, we tend to apply that idea into everything we can observe, even if it's meaningless. But why is death scary? Isn't it because when you die, you stop function anymore? So ultimately, isn't what we really mean when discussing whether something is dead or not the functionality of that?
Not only that, "there is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin". If we approach this in a different way: the time when an individual function begins to work, will there be a consensus? I mean, just don't think if an organism is alive or not, just think that how much functions of it have started to work.
If we are the combination of the numerous of selfish genes, would "humanity" be a collection of functions?