If you look at a drop of pond water through a microscope, it’s a chaotic mess. Things are swimming, eating, and dying. It’s busy. But if you zoom out, it just looks like a still green puddle. That’s basically the problem with how we define our existence. We are so used to the biological "standard"—carbon, water, DNA—that we forget how weird and specific our version of reality actually is. We talk about life as we know it like it’s the only game in town, but the more we poke at the edges of physics and synthetic biology, the more it feels like we’re just one chapter in a much longer, weirder book.
Honestly, we’ve been a bit narrow-minded. For decades, NASA’s search for extraterrestrial life was basically a hunt for "Earth 2.0." We looked for liquid water. We looked for oxygen. It makes sense, right? You look for what you know. But researchers like Dr. Sara Walker at Arizona State University are starting to argue that we shouldn't be looking for specific chemicals at all. Instead, we should be looking for "informational complexity."
Basically, it doesn't matter if it's made of carbon or silicon. What matters is if it can store and process information.
The Carbon Bias and Why We’re Stuck
We are carbon-based. That’s our brand. Carbon is great because it’s a social butterfly; it bonds with almost anything, creating the complex chains needed for proteins and DNA. This is why when people discuss life as we know it, they are almost always talking about organic chemistry. But why does it have to be carbon?
Silicon is the most common runner-up. It sits right below carbon on the periodic table and has similar bonding properties. You’ve probably heard this in sci-fi, but in the real world, silicon has a major flaw: it’s "sticky." When silicon bonds with oxygen, it creates solid sand (silica) instead of a gas like $CO_2$. Imagine trying to breathe out sand. It’s a logistical nightmare for a living organism.
👉 See also: Converting km h in knots: Why Pilots and Sailors Won't Use Anything Else
However, temperature changes everything. At extremely high pressures or different temperatures, the chemistry that makes life as we know it possible on Earth might fail, while other systems become viable. Titan, Saturn's moon, is a great example. It has lakes of liquid methane and ethane. It’s freezing. Water there is as hard as rock. Yet, scientists like the late Chris McKay have hypothesized that organisms could potentially "breathe" hydrogen and eat acetylene. It wouldn't be life as we recognize it, but it would be alive.
The Information Threshold
What is life, really? Is it a thing, or is it a process?
Most biologists point to the "NASA definition": a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. That’s a mouthful. It’s also maybe too restrictive. If we create an AI that can replicate, fix its own code, and adapt to its environment without human help, is that alive?
The line is blurring.
We are currently seeing the rise of "Xenobots." These are tiny biological machines designed by AI and built from frog stem cells by researchers at the University of Vermont and Tufts. They aren't quite robots, and they aren't quite traditional organisms. They can move, heal themselves, and even spontaneously gather loose cells to "reproduce" in a way. They break the mold. They challenge the very foundation of life as we know it because they are engineered, not evolved through natural selection.
Thermodynamics and the Great Persistence
Life is a weird rebellion against the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says everything should fall apart. Everything should become messy and disorganized (entropy).
Life does the opposite.
It takes energy from the sun or chemical vents and uses it to create order. It builds structures. It maintains a wall between "me" and "not me." Physicist Jeremy England at MIT has a fascinating theory called "dissipative adaptation." He suggests that under certain conditions, a group of atoms will naturally restructure themselves to dissipate energy more efficiently. Basically, if you shine light on a bunch of atoms for long enough, they might start acting like life just because it’s the most efficient way to handle the energy.
It makes life seem less like a miracle and more like an inevitability.
The Synthetic Shift
We’re no longer just observing. We’re building. Synthetic biology is moving from "editing" genes (like CRISPR) to writing entirely new genomes from scratch. In 2010, the J. Craig Venter Institute created Syn3.0, a bacterium with the smallest genome of any independent living organism. They stripped away everything non-essential.
✨ Don't miss: Por qué un cargador de batería de carro portátil es lo único que realmente salva tu viaje (y cómo no comprar basura)
They wanted to see what the bare minimum was.
What they found was that even when we build it ourselves, we don't fully understand it. About 30% of the genes required for that cell to stay alive have functions that are still a mystery to us. We literally built a living thing and still don't know exactly how it’s working. That's a humbling realization. It suggests that our grasp on life as we know it is still pretty surface-level.
Digital Life and the Silicon Soul
We have to talk about AI. Not the "chatbot" kind, but the theoretical "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). If an entity exists only as code but displays every trait of a living being—memory, self-preservation, adaptation, even a sort of "metabolism" for electricity—does it count?
Most people say no because it lacks a "body."
But our bodies are just hardware. Our DNA is the software. If you look at it through the lens of Assembly Theory, which ranks how complex an object is based on how many steps it takes to build it, a sophisticated AI program is "more alive" than a rock or a simple protein. We are moving toward a future where "biological" and "alive" are no longer synonyms.
👉 See also: Why Drawing a Series Circuit Still Trips Up Most Students
Why This Matters for the Future
If we find life on Mars or Europa, and it uses a different genetic code, everything changes. Our medicine, our philosophy, our religion—it all gets a reboot. We’ve spent human history thinking we are the pinnacle of a very specific biological tree. But we might just be one leaf on a massive, invisible forest.
The search for life isn't just about finding aliens. It’s about understanding the "state space" of reality. It’s about knowing what is possible.
Actionable Steps for the Curious
If you want to wrap your head around how the definition of life is shifting, don't just read old textbooks. The field is moving too fast.
- Follow the "Astrobiology" tag on NASA’s site. They are moving away from "follow the water" and toward "follow the complexity."
- Look into Assembly Theory. It's a relatively new framework by Lee Cronin and Sara Walker that tries to quantify life without needing it to be "organic." It's heavy stuff but changes how you see the world.
- Watch the progress of the Dragonfly mission. It’s heading to Titan in the mid-2030s. This is our best shot at seeing if "weird life" (non-water based) actually exists.
- Pay attention to Synthetic Biology news. Companies like Ginkgo Bioworks are essentially treating biology like a programming language. Seeing how they "code" cells gives you a direct look at the mechanics of life stripped of its mystery.
We are living through the era where the definition of "alive" is being rewritten in real-time. It's not just about breathing and eating anymore. It's about information, energy, and the stubborn refusal of certain patterns to disappear.
That is the new reality of life as we know it.