Is Life Truly Defined by Self-Reproduction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Life
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of life, specifically a working definition proposed by a professor that describes life as a self-reproducing chemical system. Participants explore the implications of this definition, particularly in relation to human reproduction and the status of various organisms, including viruses and sterile individuals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the adequacy of the definition by considering individuals who may not reproduce, such as gay people or sterile organisms.
  • One participant argues that even celibate individuals could be considered self-reproducing chemical systems due to cellular regeneration.
  • Concerns are raised about the inclusion of entities like viruses and chemical reactions that may not be universally accepted as living.
  • Another participant offers a humorous take, suggesting that life could be defined in a more abstract way, such as simply "doing something."
  • A participant mentions the implications of evolution and mutation in relation to the definition of life, specifically regarding the reproduction of gay individuals.
  • Some express frustration about the lack of participation from those educated in life sciences, implying a disconnect in the discussion.
  • There are indications that the discussion may be veering off-topic, with suggestions to move or lock the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of life, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity of the definition of life, the varying interpretations of reproduction, and the challenge of including non-traditional life forms in the discussion.

kant
Messages
388
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
kant said:
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.
 
Math Is Hard said:
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?
 
Beer + DNA = life.

everything that doesn't get beer is magic :-p
 
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"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
kant said:
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.
 
  • #10
Life's a piece of sh*t, when you think of it..

Monty Python.
 
  • #11
Is there any serious reason why I shouldn't just move this thread to general discussion? It clearly belongs there.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
Mk said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Living Robots Reproduce in a Unique Way
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is there a unique ancestor of all life?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
How Will We Define Life if Our Understanding Continues to Evolve?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
MHB My Failed University Life: Addictions, Depression, and Uncertain Future
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
How would you define 'living'? Are molecules alive?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
Why does biology deal with why questions?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Advice Wanted for Book Writing/Publishing
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
The Origin of Life, the relationships between life and Energy
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
Human evolution - From sperm to ape
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
New Scenario for Early Earth History and the Origin of Life
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K