this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
1690 points (99.4% liked)
Work Reform
16826 readers
1810 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again. Alive isn't biological.
You're very hung up on only biological things being alive. Which is strange when you yourself said biology has not good definition.
Biology is the study is life.
If it is alive, it is under the purview of Biology.
what you're doing, is trying to fit anything that fits the Highschool definition as alive. and you end up with chemistry rather than life.
You are very hunged up on highschool oversimplifications.
if fire is alive, would using a lighter count as abiogenesis?
Do you see how that doesn't work?
Biologists called themselves "The Study of Life", some 200 years ago. They did so with very little knowledge, and lots of ambition. Also known as hubris.
And fire is clearly chemistry and not biology.
We just study life and don't bother with the definition, its a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing
I'm not sure you're a good advocate for the sciences.
'how fire isn’t technically alive'
Why not?
It fits all the high school definition?
I explained that.
See. You didn't actually read what I wrote. You're not good at this.
you just said it can be considered alive, but then you say isn't
my point is simple, ask anyone with a biology degree,. that highschool definition is oversimplified and not useful. there is no working definition of life
You really don't know how to read do you?
I never mentioned high school. I never took biology in high school. I took physics instead. I gave you my specific definition. You thought it sounded like something you remember from high school, and ignored what I actually said.
Fire doesn't actually support itself. Each flame is gone in an instant, unique to the molecule it came from.
But is creates the illusion of continuity, which can make life a useful analogy for it sometimes.
If you still don't understand. I don't know how better I can explain it for you. I've already given you too much credit. I'm done.
Fire 100% supports itself, each flame dies but that is like saying each of your proteins get denatured and recycled, the carbon you eat eventually turns into CO2, all your matter changes at some point.