It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:31 PM
Is fire considered living?

1. It can be made naturally-lightning
2. it reproduces-kinda, it can grow
3. does it need something to live on--yes, oxygen
4. can it survive on its own in the wild?- yes it could do just fine in a dry forest.
5. could it ever become extinct-i dont think so
6. does it have any organs or complexe proteins-???maybe???
7. can it move on its own?-yes
8. does it go through stages of life?-i dont think so but neither does an ameoba
9. does it have sex cells or organs?- ....mmm....

What do you guys think? Makes you kinda think huh?

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:41 PM
Fire doesn't secrete, which I believe is an accepted necessary property of a life form.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:50 PM
All life as we know it needs water to live. Water would kill the fire.
Fire is a chemical reaction involving hydrocarbons and oxygen.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:52 PM
To me, everything has a life and death, so yes to your Question.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by SpittinCobra]

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:00 PM
A thing is usually considered living if it reproduces and performs metabolic reactions all on its own. Fire doesn't 'reproduce' strictly, it just precipitates a chemical reaction, and fire only has one 'metabolic' reaction, burning, and it has no ability to control it. So I'll, uncontroverselly, say fire is not alive.

A virus, for example, is usually said to not be alive because it can't reproduce under its own power, it needs to hijack an actual living cell. Prions, misshaped proteins that can sometimes induce other proteins to become similiarly mishappen, are also not considered alive, as they don't perform any metabolic reactions.

But this does bring up an interesting consideration. Fire could almost be thought of as 'nearly alive' or something. What other weird things under other planetary conditions, ie 'astrobiological' things, are 'alive' but not recognizably so? Like say, a lake, that is filled with relatively stable chemicals that undergo a series of reactions that all sum up to a maintenance of something like 'homeostasis' for that lake? 'diffuse' organisms, and the like. Something 'truly' alien, not just 'gray with big eyes'.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:55 PM
ic, so i guess fire is considered not alive, but i suppose it is fairly close isnt it?

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:05 PM
Standard middle school biology question, "Why is fire not considered a living organism?" Answer: Because it does not have a cellular structure. Sure, it's an interesting converstation piece but also, I mean, does it really have a "gestation" period, does is really "mutate" from generation to generation, does it have genes? Let's not get into whether or not it's sentient or not, har har

Also, "can it ever become extinct - I don't think so" Well sure, it can, though I don't think the possibility of extinction is a requirement for life (name one organism that can't be "extinct" - millions already have become extinct - many within our lives!) Imagine if temperatures were so low combustion was impossible, then again, simple imagine all oxygen disappearing

[edit on 5-3-2005 by AlphaHumana]

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:51 PM
...o...k... a standard middle school question, i never learned that in my 3 years of middle school.

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:18 PM
OK, let's extrapolate on that question a bit more

Can a star be considered alive?

Can they reproduce? No (at least we don't think that they can)

Do they have a "life cycle?" Yes.

Do they consume food? Yes, of a sort (hydrogen).

Do they excrete? Yes (Photons)

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:56 PM
hhmm.. so i guess everythings kinda close in some way or another so i guess it all just adds up to no, its not that close.

top topics


log in