When trying to decipher the origins of life, there are many paths to follow. Chemical, physical, and occasionally for some, spiritual. For me, one of the most puzzling questions is what exactly defines life? It is a difficult philosophical question that is nearly unanswerable, and often not useful in studying the actual origins of life, but it is entertaining to postulate the different constraints that we place on what is “alive”. One simple designation is “You know it when you see it”, but that strays away from the actual matter at hand. At which point does something have enough interaction with the world around it to be considered alive? Some like to define life as a system that uses free energy in a system to propagate itself. I personally like this viewpoint, but it is a bit vague and leaves some open ends. Fire consumes fuel, taken from its nearby environment, and grows from this process. But is fire alive? Or does it just follow characteristics of living things. Another argument put forth is that there is a scale of life. Humans being at the top, can perceive the ‘life’ of other organisms lower down on the ladder. This implies that animals are more alive or conscious than plants, plants more so than simple multicellular organisms, and those still more complex than single sell organisms. This leads us to question a higher order organism, if in existence, would view us as less alive. Would they have some discerning power enabling them to draw differences between us? The other end of the spectrum can also be analyzed. What is more simple than a single celled organism, but is still considered alive? Through exploration of other planetary bodies, we can hope to observe new examples of life, maybe based on compounds other than water and carbon. These are just some ideas to ponder, they may not even have real answers. But thinking about difficult ideas is how new ones are born. What is your simple definition of life?

Views: 63


You need to be a member of SAGANet to add comments!

Join SAGANet

Comment by Kelly C. Smith on May 2, 2016 at 10:28am

In response to Charles' comment: it's not because we don't understand the details of living processes that we haven't achieved a single definition of life.  It's more because we use the word "life" for different purposes.  This is even true, to some extent, within the different scientific subspecialties.  We have the exact sam problem with "species" and "gene."

Comment by Charles Wen on April 28, 2016 at 12:31pm

Really interesting post. It's interesting how there's no consensus on what defines life because we know so little about the conditions required for life, but humans can easily classify the degree of life of other organisms. While its debatable if some organisms are more "alive" than others, humans definitely perceive macro organisms such as mammals as more alive than single celled microorganisms. This is most likely because we can relate to macro organisms more than we can relate to organisms we can't even see with the naked eye. However, our habit of ordering magnitudes of life reflects how we perceive certain traits to be more "lifelike".

Thinking about higher orders of life is always fascinating. When I read this post I couldn't help but remember a moment from a Rick and Morty episode, where "fart", a higher form of life, that appears as a molecular cloud tells Morty, a human, "Carbon-based life is a threat to all higher life. To us, you are what you would call a disease. Wherever we discover you, we cure it." Not really related to the topic, but it puts you into the shoes of a lowly mosquito or other pesky lower form of life.

© 2017   Blue Marble Space, a non-profit organization committed to science and science outreach.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service