OK, bear with me here. This is not a UFO/aliens topic.
I was reading a book wherein the author stated something along the lines of, “It is possible to have a suprisingly deep conversation on whether or not Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is alive,” along with a few reasons I’ll get to soon. So now this is stuck in my head and I’m desperate to see if he’s right.
The idea is that the GRS has been around for centuries as a stable, nonequilibrium system. Both matter and energy flow through it - in fact, it is doubtful that any one chunck of matter has stayed in the storm throughout its existence. In ways, this is very similar to life as we know it. We eat and excrete. We are not in equilibrium. In fact, the Spot could even be said to reproduce, as it spawns “daughter” storms.
Obviously, this debate is largely about our definitions of life and their limitations. So how about it? In what ways is it alive? Or not? Or is the whole thing bunk?
That’s a fine philosophical question, but, as you point out, it’s not “is the GRS alive?” Rather it is “how do we define life?”
According to the criteria you mention, a lot of inanimate objects could be alive. Fire, for metaphorical example, consumes matter to sustain itself, excretes, grows, reproduces, and dies. But it’s not alive, and no amount of brain twisting will make it so. Computers can be programmed to act in ways that simulate life, but they are not alive. The GRS, which is a gigantic storm, is also, for all we know, not alive any more than weather systems on the Earth are alive.
Life is a quality that is probably independent of duration of existence. If something is alive for 10 seconds, that makes it as alive as something that has lived for 300 years.
Actually, the most complete definition of Life that I’ve been able to find has, as a requirement, the use of nucleic acids as a means of coding genetic information. Obviously, we’ll have to chuck this definition if we ever meet something that’s obviously alive but doesn’t fit it, but until then, it’s easy to answer your question with a No.
However, even nixing that requirement, I’ve always thought that a good sine qua non would be that a life form would produce offspring which are similar to itself, almost identical, if it’s asexual reproduction. However, Jupiter isn’t covered with little GRSettes. And although I don’t know much about meteorology in general or Jovian meteorology specifically, I don’t think that the GRS is ever expected to spawn another storm quite like itself. I’ve given off fingernail clippings my whole life, but even though they’re made of the same stuff that I am, they’re not my offspring.
I’ve always felt the requirement for reproduction is unnecessary and a distraction. If we genetically modify a goat’s DNA to eliminate the reproductive organs, insert the DNA into a goat egg cell, and implant the cell in a female goat, when the “goat” is born, is it not alive because it can’t reproduce? For that matter, are mules not alive because they are sterile?
“Life” is one of those concepts that everyone understands, but noone can really define very well. “Time” is another one. Is there a name for this kind of situation?
You don’t even have to worry about DNA manipulation or anything weird like that. There are plenty of instances of lifeforms which, through some mutation or disease or something, are made sterile. Even humans.
But these are exceptions. You can have all the individuals like this that you want, but you can’t have an entire species which is incapable of reproduction, at least not for very long. I guess that if you want to include all these exceptions, then you could replace “Living things are capable of reproduction,” with Cecil’s version: “Living things contain reproducible hereditary information.” The problem with this definition is, if you wrote the DNA sequence of an animal into a big book, would the book be a living thing, because it contains the hereditary information? Any way you do it, you’re going to have exceptions.
Despite my poorly worded sentiment earlier, I completely agree that reproduction itself should not be a requirement for life. I certainly don’t like the idea that I’m not alive until I have kids.
Not alive 'til you have kids? THAT explains my lack of a life…
Seriously… for the basis of casual observation, do we really need to rule out the Great Red Spot (or Spottie, as I like to call him) as “being alive”? As long as we’re not making any judgements or decisions that aren’t made different based on its’ life status, I don’t see the harm… seems like it’d be fun, actually. Who here talks to their TV, or their car, or their computer, or their cat… wait, no, scratch the last one.
Technically, I would agree that it’s not a living thing, though. But it’s still nice to talk to Spottie once in a while.
Now, what defines “life”… hmmm… if PETA wants to protect it from the evil, devil-spawned hands of man, then it’s life. Otherwise, we list it as Pauly Shore (man, this is the SECOND thread that I make fun of him in! I’m proud of myself).