Fnord wrote:
When you said "reproduce", I thought you were going to refer to some mystical exchange of stellar DNA, rather than the coalescence of nebulous matter, which was left over from a previous star's demise.
When we try to understand the term "live" we may had to look what we call "alive" and what not. Let say my neighbour's cat and the cup standing in front of me: The cat is acting actively to maintain it's existence (hunting birds, begging for food, running away from cars). The same is even to say about a tree, which extract actively substances out of the soil to maintain it's existence. The cup in from of me does not act in anyway actively, the cup is subject to outer influences. It is not able to maintain it's current structure. The same is to say e.g. of a stone.
So maintaining it's own existence in an active manner with the clear purpose ro uphold this existence is necessary feature of "live".
Coming back to the question: Are stars and planets alive? Stars and planets do not have any active process in which they purposefully maintain their existence, therefore they be called alive.
Last edited by Dussel on 24 Feb 2009, 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.