Why call it "alive"? It has been mentioned innumerable times in previous threads that "life" has no working definition. Most of the definitions that people have tried to devise have either excluded some things that are still considered living, or have included some things that are certainly not considered living. So, my question is, why did we ever come up with this distinction in the first place? Is it part of our evolutionary (cultural or organic) heritage? What use does it really serve in the long run? As it is, I see us as having three choices: 1) Abandon the whole "living/non-living" distinction altogether, and move on. 2) Form a fully functioning definition, that allows only those things which we would all agree are "alive" and excludes those things which are obviously "non-living". 3) Use one of the definitions (sets of criteria) that we have already devised and accept the consequence that either some of the things that we thought were "alive" are not, or that some of the things that we've assumed to be definitely "non-living" are indeed alive. Please give reasons for which you vote for. Along with such reasons, any comments, corrections, or questions that remain on-topic are appreciated . Oh, btw, if you think you've got another alternative, then just choose "other..." and then post your alternative (this should seem self-explanatory, but there've been problems in the past, so I figured I'd make sure).