Is Sperm a lifeform?

[BillHoyt]

I may be misreading your statements, but I think this is incorrect. Human sperm cells are just as human as you or I (though obviously most people wouldn't consider them human beings). Unless you want to contend that humans (or any other sexually reproducing animal) aren't alive, then you must consider sperm themselves to be alive.

Of course, while one of my liver cells is alive, I don't think we would consider it a life form on its own. So the question is, are sperm individual organisms on their own (as opposed to parts of a collective)? And I think the answer is yes. That we humans spend so little of our life cycle in haploid form does not detract from this.

I agree with you; sperm are alive. I also agree with your earlier post; zygotes have organelles. One point I disagree on is "the collective" portion of your post. The organelles already represent a collective that became fused long ago. If you'd like to google this, I suggest you start with "Margulis endosymbionts"

 

[BillyJoe]

Sperm is a half-life.

But seriously, if a sperm is not alive, it must be dead. And, therefore, an ovum must also be dead. A zygote, on the other hand is living. So, when a dead sperm enters a dead ovum, a living zygote is produced. A sperm is, therefore, the "spark of life".

Okay, I was not being serious.

BJ

 

[stamenflicker]

Sperm don't make more of themselves, they don't have systems which can perpetuate themselves, and so they don't intake or excrete anything,whereas human beings do all of that.

It's a good thing something is looking after my sperm reproduction, cause I'd be out like.... tomorrow.

Flick

 

[Soapy Sam]

Once, there was a last Dodo.

It may have been perfectly healthy right up till it squawked it's last, but it was unable to reproduce ( due to the shortage of other Dodos).

Yet it was, indisputably, alive.

I see no clear reason why something must be able to reproduce, even in theory, in order to be considered alive.
This seems to be pure sexism. Or asexism. Whichever.

Treebeard the Ent was alive*

*(For a certain meaning of "alive")

 

[BillyJoe]

It's a fact of life that some things are definitely alive and some things are definitely dead, but that there are also things in between that are not clearly either alive or dead. This is as you would expect if life evolved.

BJ

 

[NeilC]

Alive vs being a lifeform

The definition of what is required to be considered a lifeform has been made up by looking at things that are lifeforms and seeing what is common to them.

The ability to reproduce is key to this. Something can be alive without being a lifeform. A tree is a lifeform but a leaf is not. The only difference between them in terms of the definition of a lifeform is that the leaf cannot reproduce. It excretes, reacts to it's environment etc etc. It is part of a lifeform.

Sperm are like this. They are specialised cells, part of a human lifeform. They are alive but they are not a separate lifeform.

 

[BillyJoe]

Splossy,

It doesn't help.
It just shifts the focus.

Is a virus a lifeform?
A prion?

BJ

 

[NeilC]

Sorry - doesn't help what?

I thought the question was about sperm?

That might be answered by seperating the definitions "alive" and "lifeform".

Prions and viruses are a different matter.

Anyone know if you get "good" viruses? Ones that are not pathogenic?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Bacteriophages?

But now you're into moral definitions.

Good?

What does Santa bring "good" little virii?

 

[Piscivore]

What does Santa bring "good" little virii?

Pink ribbons for their protein coats.


So a sperm is "alive" but not a separate "lifeform", is that what I'm hearing?

 

[rppa]

I'm surprised at you people.

How could anybody see this thread title and not think immediately of Every Sperm is Sacred ?

 

[BillyJoe]

Splossy,

Sorry - doesn't help what?

I thought the question was about sperm?

That might be answered by seperating the definitions "alive" and "lifeform".

Prions and viruses are a different matter.

Right, I lost track of title of this thread. Anyway, the point is that, regardless of whether you focus on "life" or "lifeform", there will always be a grey area where it is difficult to be certain one way or the other. The only winner, in a sense, is evolution.

Anyone know if you get "good" viruses? Ones that are not pathogenic?

I suppose you mean from the human perspective. There are certainly viruses that are not pathogenic to man. I don't think there are viruses that are "good" for humans, except indirectly (for example the myxoma virus used to help keep down rabbit numbers in outback Australia)

BJ