Re: machine, organism, life

[John M <***>]

Dear Dan and Judith,

I see a problem here:
to restrict "life" (as in 'life sciences') to the terrestrial
biolsphere-harbored - 'Carbon-Water' (ie. cell-based?) biology, would
restrict the 'ecosystem' (as I agree - is considered as the supporting
environment of the 'living' -complexities as contrasted with the loose term
'environment' which may be inert to such) - to the terrestrial biosphere.  I
find that a narrowed down view.

Extending the circle of 'living organisms' (complexities) beyond our biology
into the societal, economical cosmic, ideational, (whatever - etc.)
organisms with certain criteria applicable to a wider term of 'living' would
expand the territory of ecosystems into more than just here & now.
I agree with Dan (I think I got the right idea) that living organisms don't
constitute an ecosystem.
Ecosystem is the forest, not the trees. Or: a capitalist society, not the
companies.

A good idea about economy and ecology: the latter having the former and vice
versa. <G>

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: machine, organism, life


> Judith,
>
> You ask hard questions and I can't answer most of them,
> but I'll reply to two small points now, more later...
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> > Is there an ecosystem if there are no living organisms in it (like on
the
> > moon)? If yes, is there life in that ecosystem?
SNIP