The physical world is an intricate dance between matter, information, and energy. Recognizing that mitochondria are alive will open new horizons into how we learn about, and build with, biology.
This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.
Mitochondria are fascinating and there is still a huge amount to learn about them but they are totally dependent on the cell's machinery. Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. A glaring omission if you are trying to make the case that mitochondria are independently living. My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?
The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. This really isn't the case. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria was challenged by many, and it did spark a scientific debate - that's how science works. She won the argument comprehensively decades ago and is well established science. There have been many such endosymbiotic events in the history of life - there are subfields of evolutionary biology that study these processes.
I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a spiritual connection to the aliveness of mitochondria, but a pragmatic orientation towards their health and wellbeing. And there is a lot of scientific opportunity to explore there.
The idea of mitochondria as existing in an enduring status of independence inside human (and other) cells is even more exciting as the idea of them as absorbed symbionts. The idea makes me obscurely happy.
I'm very puzzled by this essay. "If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?" Lots of people do great work on mitochondria; I've never heard any of them care about the semantic distinction of whether they are "alive" or not. All the fascinating aspects of mitochondrial activity are what they are, just as all the fascinating aspects of motor protein activity, or cytoskeletal activity, or embryonic patterning activity, are what they are. What does choosing a terminology of "living" vs "nonliving" matter? I certainly agree with the author that mitochondria are amazing!
Fascinating article. Just a small typo: Einstein and Shannon worked at the beginning of the 20th century, not the 19th.
Cheers, thanks!
Thank you Niko and the Asimov Press team for all of the help! Excited to discuss this in the comments.
This essay is a model of clear, concise science-for-the-layman.
This article is framed as if there is something novel and profound here, but the "aliveness" of mitochondria is simply a matter of how we choose to apply the label "life" - a human linguistic construct that exists independently of the biological phenomena. This is not a new discussion - science has been considering this question for many decades, just as it has with viruses. These all come down to arguments about semantics and don't add anything to the science.
Mitochondria are fascinating and there is still a huge amount to learn about them but they are totally dependent on the cell's machinery. Most of their genes, the code for their structure, are in the nuclear DNA. A glaring omission if you are trying to make the case that mitochondria are independently living. My heart can exist independently of me, and be transplanted into other people, but does it mean that it is alive?
The implication of the whole article is that there something we have missed. This really isn't the case. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria was challenged by many, and it did spark a scientific debate - that's how science works. She won the argument comprehensively decades ago and is well established science. There have been many such endosymbiotic events in the history of life - there are subfields of evolutionary biology that study these processes.
I’m not sure what you are arguing against. For me, the article offered a lovely reminder that life is special. Life involves mechanisms but it is more than a machine. And with an attitude that our lives our symbiotically bound to another living organism (or 10^17 of them) we gain a valuable humility — one that might afford us new perspectives on how to make them all happy and flourish. That’s the promise— not just a spiritual connection to the aliveness of mitochondria, but a pragmatic orientation towards their health and wellbeing. And there is a lot of scientific opportunity to explore there.
Thank you for writing this article about my mom’s work.
The idea of mitochondria as existing in an enduring status of independence inside human (and other) cells is even more exciting as the idea of them as absorbed symbionts. The idea makes me obscurely happy.
.
Our Government
Is Printing
Fiat People.
Not Backed By
Natural Immunity.
.
“Why does being alive matter? Isn’t it all semantics?” Maybe! But here’s a cool video— know any others to share?
https://youtu.be/qxeUZT8lgu8?si=oIKYZx0_OrWQyAo6
I'm very puzzled by this essay. "If we think of mitochondria as non-living organelles, how will we ever harness their full potential?" Lots of people do great work on mitochondria; I've never heard any of them care about the semantic distinction of whether they are "alive" or not. All the fascinating aspects of mitochondrial activity are what they are, just as all the fascinating aspects of motor protein activity, or cytoskeletal activity, or embryonic patterning activity, are what they are. What does choosing a terminology of "living" vs "nonliving" matter? I certainly agree with the author that mitochondria are amazing!
You may be interested in this: A New Scientific Model of Mania and Depression, with Testable Predictions
https://breckyunits.com/bipolarModel.html
TO KNOW US IS TO LOVE US