Biologists can never entirely agree upon a definition for life. In fact, scientists cannot agree upon definitions for anything, and they hate definitions, which is just as well, since all they can really do is build small bits of evidence upon previous evidence.

Philosophically, there is nothing easier to do than define everything. So I define life as "unified reality". A more functional definition, but less complete, is "ordered complexity". Death is disordered complexity. Ordered complexity doesn't say whether something is small and trivial; so this definition might be qualified as the totality of all ordered complexity. The totality of all ordered complexity is unified reality. Unified reality is the combination of all realities which have consistent relationships between them.

This definition does not differentiate between life forms and their environments. That's what's nice about it. Life cannot exists without suitable environments.

Defining life this way shows that universality is required for life. Universality could be defined as "incorporation into unified reality". If something is not incorporated into unified reality, it does not sustain life.

This would apply to all lies and contrivances. Does a so-called white lie incorporate into unified reality? If someone can justify it, it does; but I'm not going to try to justify white lies here.

One of the main reasons for taking up this subject is to show that the construction of barriers does not sustain life. Scientists build barriers around themselves, as do all other professionals. All power is mongered by constructing barriers around power mongers and the power that they control. It's not a benevolent, alternative life style; it's a destruction of life.

To separate personal from public is not a corruption. At the personal level, subjectivity is acceptable. But at the public level, subjectivity is not acceptable, because it is separated from the universality of the public level.

Often there is some awareness of half of the truth of this subject without really understanding the subject. When the observation is made that there needs to be more openness and inclusivity, it tends to lead to the promotion of community. Notice that communities have boundaries around them. The half conscious assumption is that people are included in communities, and therefore communities promote inclusivity. But this assumption ignores the boundary around communities, which promotes exclusivity.

This approach is often selected and promoted due to a subconscious need to create boundaries. A community does exactly what a corrupt person wants to do, which is include some persons, but exclude others. Sometimes, there is a justification in doing so. But anything which is justified needs to be openly and accountably controlled. The concept of community relegates the dividing line to illusive whims which are not open and accountable.

The alternative to barriers is openness and accountability. Openness and accountability add universality to life.