Talk:Life

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This biology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

I'm sure Emo666's edit will soon be reverted, but I must say: I agree with him (for the future readers, his edit was: "Life sucks"). It's good to have small things in life, RW and CP among them. They literally can keep someone alive in difficult times. Ed @but not the Poor one! 06:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Contents

[edit] Split article?

The article is really talking about two different issues. One deals with the biological definition of life, and the other with the moral issues of life. I propose splitting them into separate articles. --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 16:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I propose merging into this article exobiology and fairies, to bulk it up for the playoffs. humanUser talk:Human 00:47, 4 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Extra Terrestrial life

BBC Horizon program 4th March 08. also on web (see link). Susanpurrrrr 00:37, 4 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Fire

Not sure I'm convinced... however, the "but" line has not popped into my mind yet. But it might be something like the complete lack of a template for the "next generation" or offspring to be made to resemble the "parent". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:56, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

No, that wouldn't make sense. I think the argument you're looking for might be "fire has no capacity for homeostasis". New3.pngPink(You're welcome) 18:05, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, yeah, that sounds good. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:44, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Put another way, fire has no internal regulation of chemical processes whatsoever, it just burns as long as it has fuel and oxygen (and enough residual heat). ħumanUser talk:Human 19:08, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Fire consumes energy, and in the case of a slow burning candle, in a controlled manner, but it doesn't preserve information. In fact it usually destroys it. Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The classical view

Really, we've evolved this term "life" for a reason; it's incredibly important to know what we can eat, what we can't eat, and what will eat us and what won't eat us. This rock lying here won't eat me, but I can't eat it. This tiger on the other hand, well, stick around thinking about it and you'll be screaming as it sinks its teeth into you. So we've generated this category for quickly determining the difference between animate food and predators, and inanimate background fluff. The trouble comes from the fact that the universe doesn't have such clean-cut distinctions that follow how the human brain works, and so there's no reason it should bow down to pressure from us to obey what we think it is. Since we've created this massive shining category of objects marked "LIFE" that is very important, we forget that this isn't how the universe is operating. Gravity's affect on us doesn't change because we're alive, the behavior of electrons doesn't change, our vulnerability to chemical oxidation, and so on with countless examples. Similarities between living and non-living things are greater than the differences, surely.

Yet we still treat this distinction as important, and argue it as if the world does have this clean cut border and sorts things neatly for us. So we ask "is this alive?" when we really mean is closer to "is this going to eat us if we turn our back?" Scarlet A.pnggnostic 03:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So plants aren't alive? :-\
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support