Skip to main content

No, but seriously: What is “Life”?

Attempts to define life in terms of humans thinking about defining life in terms of egotistical individuals, genes, species or whatnot have failed for what should be obvious reasons.
Life is a natural phenomenon no different to any other.

It can be regarded as an abstract concept referring to an energy exchange process rather than any given chemical, object, individual or concrete material arrangement.

The temptation to define life as such has been merely a bias of the definer, of our individual consciousness taking place in an individual body. While bodies may exhibit life, as they are alive, they are not as such life itself, as life itself does not operate in any significant way on a given object: not individuals, nor species, nor size scales, chemicals nor arrangements of matter. The failure of life at any of these levels (think individual death, species extinction or even mass extinctions) does not overall hinder the process of life through time, for as long as any single thread of life is unbroken e.g. a monophyletic tree.

Illusions of object dependency or the specifics of life expression are the result of a specific form of life i.e. humans, trying to define life which inevitably does pass through them. A life form looking upon itself and others unlike it, trying to define it all. Many biases emerge.

No object as such satisfies the shockingly simple prerequisites of the life process in abstraction, that is, survival at one level (genetic, individual, ecosystem or other) for reproduction at another (most often thought of at the individual level; reproduction at one level is merely survival at another, so the two concepts are subtly the same thing, for example reproduction of the individual is survival of the population, or reproduction of the cell is survival of the individual).

Evolution transcends these discrete objects. It has transcended even DNA, where any combination of RNA and intermediate molecules have shaped up the processes of heredity and the production of biologicals based on amino acids. The process of life simply does not adhere to a strict form that we have tried to impose on it, be it a set of base chemicals, protein products, anatomical setups or behavioural assumptions.

Regarding the simple prerequisites of the life process, energy transfer via persistence at one level for reproduction (whether for maintenance of the life process, or for expansion purposes which are dependent on the environment and hence not purely inherent to the life process in isolation) at another level:

These conditions may be ascribed to non-life processes in the current sense, for example products of humans, artificial intelligence, inorganic type items. In this case the definition ca be freely adapted. Either these are equally part of the life process, especially if they are energetic descendants of initial life forms like humans; or just treated based on the conclusion of the definer’s (humans’) inherent bias regarding what is to be acceptably taken under the simple and generic umbrella definition of the life process.

Essentially, “What is life?” passes through the human lens. The bulk of the answer separating life from non-life is therefore a reflection of human self-reflection, validation and perception. In reality, such steep distinction between the living and non-living does not exist. For, as per the start of the essay, life is a natural process fundamentally no different to any other in the universe.

Image credit: Scott Eaton,


Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.

Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?

The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?

CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…