Life n. 1. being alive, the ability to function and grow that distinguishes animals and plants (before their death) from rocks and synthetic substances.


But I don't know if that's a very good definition. It rules out rocks and synthetic substances from being alive. And what about afterlife? Such a simple defintion is not adequate.

I've tried to explain this to several people, all of whom were understanding people (who'd believed most of my other ideas), and to a one, they have called me loony. Except for Andrew who called me something much worse. The idea that they couldn't accept was that almost everything either is or was at one time alive. My biology teacher taught us five rules/requirements that define life, but they rule out some things that I think of as alive. Why does life have to conform to the rules we put on it?

Would a (definitely living) alien fit our five requirements? Almost certainly not. So, obviously, the accepted scientific defintion is too narrow. Even when you apply our five scientific rules to very simple organisms like members of the Monera kingdom, they only sort of apply. Does a microbe ever really die, if it produces an exact copy of itself, that for all effective purposes is itself? Does a microbe really reproduce if it's offspring is itself? It all depends on definitions. And if defintions can be stretched a little to accomodate microbes, why can't it be stretched a little to include other objects, like cars and kitchen appliances?

A blender consumes energy in the form of AC/DC current and expends this energy in physical movement (it's rotating blades). This works exactly the same as when a human eats a snickers bar to allow themselves to keep walking. You can kill a blender the same way you can kill a person, when you smash either one of them with a hammer or destroy either one with a chainsaw, they both die. A blender will no longer function the same way a human doesn't function, after either one of them has been torn apart. Why is strict reproduction necesary for life? More blenders are being created by a species that happens to like/need blenders, and blenders only live for a certain period of time, after which the contacts on their motors no longer touch and the blender dies of natural causes.

This same line of logic can be applied to virtually anything in the world. Therefore, almost everything around us is alive. It's much harder to convince people that rocks are alive than it is to convince people that blenders are alive. Rocks are alive too. They live a much simpler existence than our friend the blender, but they are alive nonetheless. They reproduce only when they are killed and they are only killed by being split into two (or more) smaller rocks. A rock takes no energy in, but that's okay, cause it also puts no energy out. It simply lives in peace with it's environment. Let's all take a moment to be like the rock... Okay, wasn't that great? People should do it more often, it would help them relax alot more and reduce stress. Rocks are very Zen. people should always strive to live like the rock. You ever hear a rock complain? They must be pretty happy. I encourage people to keep pet rocks. They're not as entertaining as cats, but they make much better pets than dogs.

Take care of your rocks and try not to kill anything.


Back to Opinions

Defintion at top Copied from Oxford American Dictionary