Why is fire not alive?

[Mr.Switchblade]

I know what your thinking. "Duh, fire isn't alive retard, everyone knows that". No shit sherlock, but why? This is a challenging question, because fire has many of the traits that we associate with living beings. It reproduces, it consumes, it creates waste, it adapts to its environment, and it has diversity. Now, i know it doesn't have cells nor DNA, but open your mind for a second and realize thats how we define LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, meaning that if there was an alien life form with an incorporeal body or didn't have cells, we would have to change our definition, so those answers suck. There is an actual answer to this that makes sense and has no loose ends, given by a nobel peace prize winning bio chemist, but i challenge you to see what you come up with. Cheers.

Wrong on the mass front. We as humans are nothing but a large reservoir of chemical reactions guys, think harder. Consciousness does not count either, do you honestly think an amoeba is conscious? A life form does not need mass to be alive. JUST LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. External influence is also wrong, since we too are created by external influence. Think harder. If you think your smarter than a nobel winning bio chemist, thats very cute, but your still wrong.

Hint; it has to do with entropy

If you don't want to stress your brain, Alex nailed it pretty good on page 2, he knows how to think outside the box. Only a few posts down. Don't let that stop you from trying yourself

 

[gmer412]

It doesn't have mass. Think about it. It's simply pure thermal energy, manifested in a chemical reaction.

Edit: Actually, I guess a being of energy could be alive...

How about this: It has to be created by some external influence.

 

[Jenx]

To put it simple - fire is not a material. It's a result of a chemical reaction.


Plus, if fire was living we'd all be screwed.

 

[arcstone]

Interesting thought.

I wont be able to sleep tonight.

 

[Mr.Switchblade]

It doesn't have mass. Think about it. It's simply pure thermal energy, manifested in a chemical reaction.

wrong. Arguably so are we, and there is no reason a life form could exist without mass, as many scientific theories point to mass as being energy.

 

[GRoXERs]

1. it doesn't evolve
2. it isn't reactive to conditions
and
3. it isn't an entity, it's a process, so you might just as well say that your computer was alive, or that the ocean is alive because it has waves.

 

[gmer412]

It doesn't have mass. Think about it. It's simply pure thermal energy, manifested in a chemical reaction.

wrong. Arguably so are we, and there is no reason a life form could exist without mass, as many scientific theories point to mass as being energy.

note my edit.

 

[the monopoly guy]

No cells, no DNA, no life.
Viruses aren't even alive.

 

[Jurnigan]

"Fire is the oxidation of a combustible material releasing heat, light, and various reaction products such as carbon dioxide and water.[1] If hot enough, the gases may become ionized to produce plasma.[2]" (Source: Wikipedia)

Fire is just a chemical reaction, nothing more. It does not reproduce, it does not consume, it does not create waste (As ash is a byproduct as well) and it does not have biological diversity. Think about it a bit more, please.

 

[Aardvark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Because Wikipedia says so.

 

[Jenx]

Well until you can prove to us that there exist life that is not constructed from mater - I don't think anyone has to bother explaining anything. Fire is just heat and light. Hell, this is like asking why wind (yes, wind, not air) isn't alive - because even if there was immaterial life forms and other voodoo like that - wind is just movement. Same thing with fire. Live with it.

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

Fire doesn't respire. All living things respire, if it doesn't respire it isn't a living thing.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well, surely we have to define it by life as we know it. If wqe define stuff as life by other rules then rocks could be life. Anything could be life. It isn't though. As far as we know.

 

[fluffylandmine]

1. it doesn't evolve
2. it isn't reactive to conditions
and
3. it isn't an entity, it's a process, so you might just as well say that your computer was alive, or that the ocean is alive because it has waves.

With the theory of Artificial Intelligence, your computer could possibly be living with the right engineering steps.

Although I see where you're coming from there.

 

[GRoXERs]

1. it doesn't evolve
2. it isn't reactive to conditions
and
3. it isn't an entity, it's a process, so you might just as well say that your computer was alive, or that the ocean is alive because it has waves.

With the theory of Artificial Intelligence, your computer could possibly be living with the right engineering steps.

Although I see where you're coming from there.

Your computer could be conscious, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove that it's alive by any of the conventional definitions.

 

[gmer412]

Fire doesn't respire. All living things respire, if it doesn't respire it isn't a living thing.

Respiration is simply a way to obtain energy. Fire takes in oxygen and releases carbon dioxide (as well as other byproducts) and can't sustain itself without oxygen.

Edit: And how do bacteria respire?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

A process must meet all the qualities of life forms before being considered alive.

Fire does not respond to stimuli, therefore it is not alive.

 

[The Admiral]

It doesn't have mass. Think about it. It's simply pure thermal energy, manifested in a chemical reaction.

wrong. Arguably so are we, and there is no reason a life form could exist without mass, as many scientific theories point to mass as being energy.

Don't you ever mention string theory again. A pox! A pox on both your houses!

 

[Xanadu84]

The term, "Life" is whatever you associate it with, since there's no hard and fast definition. However, since intuitively fire is not alive, id say that lack of Homeostasis is the best argument to say that fire lacks life, and why we don't associate it with life.