Is Life Truly Defined by Self-Reproduction?

[kant]

My professor at ucla gave the class a working definition of life as a self-reproducing, chemical system. Is there problems with this definition?

Well, given the definition only to work with, can we now consider gay people to be living?

 

[Math Is Hard]

My professor at ucla gave the class a working definition of life as a self-reproducing, chemical system. Is there problems with this definition?

Well, given the definition only to work with, can we now consider gay people to be living?

most gay people have the ability to reproduce, but may choose not to. If you want a more interesting challenge to the definition, consider humans or organisms that are sterile.
my two cents.

 

[selfAdjoint]

most gay people have the ability to reproduce, but may choose not to. If you want a more interesting challenge to the definition, consider humans or organisms that are sterile.
my two cents.

But even a celibate monk is, in and of himself, a "self-reproducing chemical system". Our body cells die and are replaced at a fearsome rate.

The problem I see with the definition is that it may include systems that are not generally agreed to be alive. Let's discuss viruses, for example, and how about the simple chemical reaction in a petri dish that generates repeating spiral waves?

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

Beer + DNA = life.

everything that doesn't get beer is magic

 

[Arjun]

life ...hmm

LIFE - I think the definition of life - "is to do some thing - does not matter what you do or what you think, just do some thing"

 

[waht]

If evolution is correct, then the chemical system that is life reproduces, some of it will mutate. If it mutates to gay person, then that mutation dies. Gays don't have an affect on general populaton anyway. That's why the general population keeps producing mutated offsprings that are gay.

 

[Jude143]

Life is the greatest form of organism that takes shape in all its nature to reach ultimate goal of highest form to meet the consequences.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Just as I thought. People who are technically educated in the life sciences don't participate in discussions on the definition of life and leave them to the uninformed hoi polloi, like me!

 

[DaveC426913]

My professor at ucla gave the class a working definition of life as a self-reproducing, chemical system. Is there problems with this definition?

Well, given the definition only to work with, can we now consider gay people to be living?

Not having any children, I guess I'm not alive either.

Bummer.

 

[arildno]

Life's a piece of sh*t, when you think of it..

Monty Python.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is there any serious reason why I shouldn't just move this thread to general discussion? It clearly belongs there.

 

[Mk]

The way this is going I think it would rather be locked.

We answered the original question, and it is simple that we can't define life all that well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The way this is going I think it would rather be locked.

We answered the original question, and it is simple that we can't define life all that well.

I agree. Bye-bye. If you want to continue, do it on GD.