Fire eats, breathes, grows, moves, reproduces... why isn't fire considered alive?

What good does defining "life" do anyway? If it's about rights, then we should have moved on to qualifiers and attributes instead of catch-all definition boxes long ago.

Viruses contain RNA, in fact they are literally just strands of RNA and they cannot survive without a host. They are the one thing scientists still debate on whether to consider it life or not for this very reason. Personally I don't think viruses can be classified as life, they should be their own classification as "virus".

There are both DNA and RNA viruses.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info.

>Arbitrary bullshit. AI deserve to nuke humanity then.
I doubt AI was a concern when these definitions were first proposed. Even if it was, AI still can't metabolize or physically grow.

>Doesn't even cover most life on earth that fucks their environment. Consumes until it can't.
If it runs out of food, it goes somewhere else where there is food. Or it evolves over many generations.

>What's eating then?
Consuming nutrients/chemicals to allow for metabolism.

What about GAI? Is that not 'alive'?

ITT: y'all niggers arguing semantics.

Shh, I was waiting for OP to say something stupid so I could say that

What a stupid fucking thread

> corpses are alive
spooky

>Arbitrary

Learn what that means before using it, kid.

>dat irony

Wrong. Fire doesn't seek out energy, so it isn't considered alive. The same reason a virus isn't considered alive.

You probably failed biology. A virus has all of these things except for seeking or making energy, so it isn't considered alive. DNA technically has nothing to do with it.

> The current definition of living is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

how do you spell cells?

fire consumes organic matter and outputs waste in the normal combustion reaction. also, the airflow generated from its self could be seen as a form of self propogation.

technically we could generalize life down to the quark level of energies.

>current

you assume that it isnt a falsifiable definition, and you people call yourselves scientists. epistemology must not be a requirement anymore

Because its not (((Black))).

U r a god of science

>AI still can't metabolize or physically grow.
it does in a virtual sense though.
If an AI starts questioning itself and its surroundings i would not only consider it counscius, but also alive.

Set a fire on your couch. Go to sleep in the next room. By your logic you have nothing to worry about because the fire will stay in one spot.

Fire is chemically indistinguishable from life.

>eats
reacts?
>breathes
reacts
>grows
ya
>moves
yep
>reproduces
spreads