yes, good point. some autonomy and skin-in-the-game is probably required too.
the article seems to have sparked some good conversation, so it's been useful, if not as strong as it might be.
the article seems to have sparked some good conversation, so it's been useful, if not as strong as it might be.
I also think this is a weakness of the original article: a lot of things we probably shouldn't consider individual life forms would probably fit the definition (nations, for example).