And that is a fair criticism. For instance, I worry somewhat about the metabolism criterion. We only recognize carbon-based organic matter as such, though other constructs, while unlikely, are possible. In that sense we may just overlook something that for all inents and purposes is alive (just not carbon-based) and whether we shall eventually spot it still will surely depend on our willingness to adapt the definitions to include it - not so much the criteria for life as the distinction of organic and non-organic chemistry. So there is quite a case to change some definitions to some extent. However, a definition is nothing if it does not define, i.e. draw lines between things. If we loosen the criteria so far as to include anything, we might as well drop them altogether and render the word "alive" meaningless as there be nothing to contrast it to.
NASA does celebrate finding rocks, but then they never celebrate them as another find of extraterrestrial life, do they?
As for the emotional value you mention, I guess that is fair enough. I for my part don't need to think I'm an actual body part of something in order to feel connected with it. In fact, my dependence on other things and their dependence on me makes me a rather central figure of at least my own consideration and I feel much at peace thinking that how I think and consequently act is both a product of and has an effect on myself and the world around me. I am very much a part of the whole but I am not a mere cog idly spinning in obedience of the others and I would feel no better if I were.
Of course, my peace heavily depends on free will which intellectually I know full well I don't have; but then I guess each of us has to succumb to some illusions, so I'll try and pick only the most necessary ones :laugh:
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
