Back
Forum Replies Created
-
The video’s argument suggests that we might need multiple overlapping definitions of life depending on the context — one for searching microbes on Mars, another for theorizing about post-biological civilizations, and another still for artificial life we might create ourselves.
So yes — like the video, I think the NASA definition is a useful starting framework, but not the final word. It’s built for our current level of technology and understanding, but the universe likely contains forms of life (or life-like systems) that challenge every box we try to put them in.
While the NASA definition is a robust and practical starting point, it may not be universally sufficient to describe all conceivable forms of life — especially those that are non-chemical, non-Darwinian, or post-biological. In the future, we may need a more function-based or information-theoretic definition of life that emphasizes complexity, autonomy, and adaptive behavior over specific mechanisms like chemistry and evolution.
So yes, it’s quite plausible that alien biologies — or even wholly different types of life — could fall outside the boundaries of this definition. Our current model is shaped by what we know, but the universe might surprise us.