The Problem of Defining Life
The question "what is life?" seems at first to be a strange one with clear answers. You typically know it when you see it, and everyday examples are easy to list: people, dogs, grass, trees, ants, and so on. All of those things appear to have something special that a rock or a screwdriver does not. However, it takes more than a few examples and a vague special something to form a rigorous universal definition for life. In practice, we have many working definitions of life which define it in terms of its properties and behavior, such as whether something undergoes Darwinian evolution or is capable of self-replication. For most of these definitions however, there exist counterexamples, like fire, which has the property of self-replication, but is not generally considered to be alive. At present, we still do not have a good, satisfying definition of what constitutes life.
The following discussion quickly descends into complex and deeply philosophical arguments if allowed to do so, but why have such a discussion in the first place? It turns out that several recently developed branches of science depend on having a definitive, practical answer to this question. Scientists who study the origins of life on Earth suspect that life arose gradually from a slow evolution of geochemical processes into ever more complex living systems. Without an ironclad definition of what constitutes life, deciding where in such a procession to draw the line between geochemistry and biochemistry is impossible. In the field of astrobiology, these problems are compounded, since we must decide on a universal definition for life using a sample size of exactly one known life-bearing planet. Any such definition will certainly need to be revised if humanity ever discovers a type of extraterrestrial life, since we likely cannot imagine every alternate form of life that may exist in the universe.
A Possible False Dichotomy
In logic, a false dichotomy is a fallacy where a situation is presented as having only two extreme options, when in reality other intermediate options exist. For example, the old expression "if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem" pigeonholes people into one of two polar categories, leaving no room for bystanders and creating a false dichotomy. Likewise, classifying something as being either alive or not alive also presents dichotomy of a sort: a cat is alive, a bicycle is not, a virus is… let’s come back to that one. When considering the geochemical origins of life on Earth, it becomes evident that this dichotomy may also be a false one. Could it be possible that there exist intermediates on this scale, which are neither fully alive nor fully inanimate?
The synthesis of life is thought to have begun with inorganic molecules and eventually worked its way up to basic single-celled organisms, but is there actually a sharp line somewhere in the middle that divides life from non-life? It is possible that there exist intermediate steps which were somehow both more alive than a CO2 molecule, and yet less so than an early prokaryote? If the origin of life truly was so gradual a sequence of events, then the existence of such a gray area between the two extremes feels reasonable enough, not to mention that it would explain the difficulty of defining life. Controversial entities like viruses could have a home somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, since they have unique properties and behavior that make their life status difficult to agree upon. These considerations help us to realize that the constructions of life and non-life may not be as rigid as we make them out to be, and they may in fact be purely human constructions imposed on a universe with no such true categorization.
Viruses of a Different Kind
Another fascinating inhabitant of this gray area between life and non-life may be the modern computer virus. Many scientists, including the well-known astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, have argued the case for considering these malicious pieces of software as being alive. They display features like replication and evolution that we would normally associate with life, despite being entirely non-biological and entirely dependent on a parasitism. In many ways, they resemble biological viruses, which also display Darwinian evolution and reproduction, but depend on host cells for their reproduction and have no metabolism of their own. Are these few behaviors sufficient to conclude that a computer program can really be alive, or is there something important that is missing? Perhaps humankind has already managed to accidentally create a new form of life with little to no associated fanfare.
But something about that idea seems out of place, and many would say that life needs to have a physical, biological component. A computer virus may constitute life in some extremely abstract sense of the word, but it seems to fail to do so in a satisfying manner. Most people have a sense of life as being, for lack of a better word, squishy. It needs to be made of chemistry and a computer virus, despite its many analogous behaviors, seems like a cheap simulation at best. This is one place where the idea of a gray area can be important to consider. It allows us to fairly acknowledge that computer viruses have a few tempting behaviors similar to life without counting as full-fledged life.
Life as a Natural Kind
The gray area that becomes apparent in defining life could also be indicative of a larger issue. In science, we work to understand the universe we inhabit in a way that is as unbiased as possible. The push to define life stems from the human observation that there seem to be roughly two types of things on Earth: life and non-life. However, it is also possible that this observation is actually an illusion, and the idea of a gray area of life could be hinting towards this end. Perhaps the distinction between bits of matter being alive or inanimate is purely a human construction, and life is not what one might call a natural kind. The universe may in fact not distinguish between the two in any meaningful way, in which case the scientific search for a definition of life may be doomed to fail or to reach an unsatisfying, arbitrary conclusion. As with many endeavors in science, the hope is that this is not the case and that our search will be fruitful, but it is equally as important to acknowledge with honesty that the universe simply might not work that way.