this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
1 points (54.5% liked)

Science

7203 readers
21 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
1
(no, actually) Could objects like stars be considered living? (sopuli.xyz)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by sbeak@sopuli.xyz to c/science@mander.xyz
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Often, we call the stages of a star its "life cycle", and I've been thinking about this for a bit.

Stars meet many of the requirements for living organisms: they can consume matter, they can react to stimuli (sort of, does gravity count? e.g. binary systems), they can reproduce (they expel gas clouds on death that can eventually create new stars), they can grow and change size over their lifespan, and they maintain equilibrium (between gravity and radiation pressure from fusion)

What stops stars from being considered living objects?

edit: as it turns out, the formation of new stars after death doesn't really count as reproduction, and gravity shouldn't count as stimuli (a rock experiences gravity too, but it doesn't react to stimuli)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] retractedfangs@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

they can reproduce (they expel gas clouds on death that can eventually create new stars)

I wouldn't consider being eaten by a pregnant predator who then gives birth to be a form of reproduction even if I supplied resources to the born creature.

they can grow and change size over their lifespan

So can oceans but I don't think it should count as growing.