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)

  • Lucy [she/faer]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m not aware of anything already considered living that will die and reanimate.

    Tardigrades? They can cease any metabolic activity and then wake up years later as if nothing happened.

    • sbeak@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      But that isn’t really reproduction, and not comparable to the death of a star

      • Lucy [she/faer]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        True I just wanted to mention these fascinating creatures because they are the closest we have to revival from death.