{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047193877551020405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01403061224489796, 'mean_word_length': 5.181102362204724, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
II. Philosophers, Biologists: Some More Effort If You Wish to Become Revolutionaries!

Norman MacLeod’s response to my essay “One Life Only: Biological Resistance, Political Resistance” is extremely helpful because it allows for a long-awaited discussion, that is, for a new type of exchange among biologists and philosophers (see Norman MacLeod, “Response to Catherine Malabou, ‘One Life Only: Biological Resistance, Political Resistance,’ ” Critical Inquiry 43 [Autumn 2016]: 191–99). The problem is that this discussion is not the one imagined by MacLeod. Rather, it is generated, in a certain sense, by the holes in his response and argument. When I speak of a “new type of exchange among biologists and philosophers” I mean a discussion that goes beyond the classical, well-known