Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Life
There are over 100 definitions for 'life' and all are wrong.
Should viruses count as living things? (Credit: Jezper/Alamy)
BBC Earth http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong
By Josh Gabbatiss
2 January 2017
It is surprisingly difficult to pin down the difference between living and non-living things
Most of us probably do not need to think too hard to distinguish living things from the "non-living".
A human is alive; a rock is not. Easy!
Scientists and philosophers do not see things quite this clearly. They have spent millennia pondering
what it is that makes something alive. Great minds from Aristotle to Carl Sagan have given it some
thought and they still have not come up with a definition that pleases everyone. In a very literal
sense, we do not yet have a "meaning" for life.
If anything, the problem of defining life has become even more difficult over the last 100 years or so.
Until the 19th Century one prevalent idea was that life is special thanks to the presence of an
intangible soul or "vital spark". This idea has now fallen out of favour in scientific circles. It has
since been superseded by more scientific approaches. Nasa, for instance, has described life as "a selfsustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".
But Nasa's is just one of many attempts to pin down all life with a simple description. In fact, over
100 definitions of life have been proposed, with most focusing on a handful of key attributes such as
replication and metabolism.
To make matters worse, different kinds of scientist have different ideas about what is truly necessary
to define something as alive. While a chemist might say life boils down to certain molecules, a
physicist might want to discuss thermodynamics.
For a better idea of why life is so difficult to define, let's meet some of the scientists who are working
on the frontier that separates living things from everything else.
Prion proteins almost count as "life" (Credit: Alfred Pasieka/Science Photo Library)
While viruses lack virtually everything that we might think is required for membership of the life
club, they do possess information coded in DNA or RNA. This blueprint for life, shared with every
living thing on the planet, means viruses can evolve and replicate albeit only by hijacking the
machinery of living cells.
The very fact that viruses like all life as we know it carry DNA or RNA has led some to suggest
that viruses must belong in our tree of life. Others have even claimed that viruses hold clues to
understanding how life began in the first place. If this is the case, life begins to look less like a blackand-white entity and more like a nebulous quantity with confusing not-quite-alive, not-quite-dead
borders.
Some scientists have embraced this idea. They characterise viruses as existing "at the border between
chemistry and life". And this raises an interesting question: when does chemistry become more than
the sum of its parts?
Harold Urey studied life's origins (Credit: US Department of Energy/Science Photo Library)
Would we notice life on Mars? (Credit: Universal Images Group North America LLC/Alamy)
Could life evolve that was based on silicon? (Credit: Jeff J. Daly/Alamy)
Astrobiologists are learning from these experiences and narrowing down the criteria they use to
search for aliens but for now, that search remains unsuccessful.
The creation of artificial life is now a fully-fledged branch of science
Perhaps astrobiologists ought not to narrow their search criteria too far, though. Sagan referred to a
carbon-centric view of alien life as "carbon chauvinism", suggesting that such an outlook could hold
back the search for extra-terrestrials.
"People have suggested that aliens could be silicon-based, or based on different solvents [other than
water]," says Cockell. "There have even been discussions about extra-terrestrial intelligent cloud
organisms."
In 2010, the discovery of bacteria with DNA containing arsenic in place of the standard phosphorus
had a lot of astrobiologists excited. While these findings have since been called into question, many
are still hopeful for demonstrations of life that does not follow conventional rules. Meanwhile, some
scientists are working on life forms that are not based on chemistry at all.
Artificial intelligence may be quite unlike "normal" life (Credit: Science Photo Library)
Technologists: building artificial life
Once the preserve of science fiction, the creation of artificial life is now a fully-fledged branch of
science.
It's trying to take a very broad view of what life is
At one level, artificial life can involve biologists creating new organisms in labs by stitching together
parts of two or more existing life forms. But it can also be a little more abstract.
Ever since the 1990s, when Thomas Ray's Tierra computer software appeared to demonstrate the
synthesis and evolution of digital "life forms", researchers have been trying to create computer
programs that truly simulate life. There are even teams that are beginning to explore the creation of
robots with life-like traits.
"The overarching idea is to try and understand the essential properties of all living systems, not just
the living systems that happen to be found on Earth," says artificial life expert Mark Bedau at Reed
College in Portland, Oregon. "It's trying to take a very broad view of what life is, whereas biology
focuses on the actual forms we are familiar with."
Synthetic biologists are building new life piece by piece (Credit: Brian Jackson/Alamy)
That said, many artificial life researchers use what we know about life on Earth to ground their
studies. Bedau says the researchers use what he calls the "PMC model" a program (for example,
DNA), a metabolism, and a container (for example, a cell's wall). "It's important to note that this isn't
a definition of life in general, just a definition of minimal chemical life," he explains.
Maybe the things we think are essential are really just peculiar to life on Earth
For those artificial life researchers working on non-chemical life forms, their task is to create
software or hardware versions of these PMC components.
"Fundamentally, I don't think there is a sharp definition [of life], but we need something to aim for,"
says Steen Rasmussen, who works on creating artificial life at the University of Southern Denmark
in Odense. Teams from around the world have worked on individual components of the PMC model,
making systems that demonstrate one or other aspect of it. So far, however, no one has assembled
them all together into a functioning synthetic life form.
"This is a bottom-up process, building it piece by piece," he explains.
Artificial life research might ultimately work on a broader scale, building life that is completely alien
to our expectations. Such research could help redefine what we understand by life. But the
researchers are not at that stage yet, says Bedau. "They don't have to worry about defining all forms
of life; maybe they'll talk about it over a beer but they don't need to include it in their work," he says.
By themselves, zebras cannot show us what life really is (Credit: Robert Harding/Alamy)