Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

It may be possible to feed on fruits; while cells there are still alive, they are about to die soon without any prospects of future surviving. If you really do not want to harm the plant in any way, take the seed from the fruit and plant it somewhere. Fruits are for seed propagation only and the plant should really not have any pretensions to you afterwards. ...


5

No. It is possible but extraordinarily impractical to nourish yourself without killing animals, plants or even bacteria, as many have explained in detail. However, your immune system constantly kills pathogens that infect your body. What's worse, the macrophages literally catch and eat these bacteria alive, so you are very much "consuming" them. You could ...


3

Well, technically if you are eating something from a plant or animal without killing that plant or animal, then technically you would not be "consuming life" as nothing as been killed. Fruits, for example, can be removed from the tree without harming it and in fact are meant to be removed as that is how the tree reproduces. Ditto with berries, melons, ...


17

Even on a purely synthetic diet, your body would still use living cells as an energy source. Our bodies contain more bacterial cells than human, mostly contained in our gut. These microbes process any nutrients we ingest and when they die, we absorb their cellular components as nutrition. The lining of the gut is the most rapidly dividing population of ...


13

Your question is phrased somewhat ambiguously as to whether you're asking about the theoretical possibility, the feasibility, or the practical ability in everyday life. 1) Theoretically, yes. It is chemically possible to produce all substances that humans need to survive without the use of living organisms in the process. In the end, biological systems use ...


6

Question: Is it possible for humans to live healthy long lives without eating any type of life, i.e no animals, no plants? First, according to a definition of a living organism(biology-online), milk is not live, because it does not have an ability to reproduce itself, among other... My claim: If you consider milk and honey non-live (no DNA), then, yes, ...


1

It is entirely possible to live without consuming life using only current technology. In fact, there is a company called Soylent which has developed a food substituent designed to replace all eating, entirely. The philosophy of that company is that – food is just a collection of chemicals for the body to process, and that as long as the body gets all ...


45

The answer to your question is yes it is certainly possible. At one time it was thought that there was something special about "organic" chemicals which meant that they could not be artificially synthesised out of fundamental elements. In 1828 Frederick Wöhler synthesised urea (CO(NH2)2) which is often taken as the first demonstration that the organic v ...


8

Depends on how you define "life"? Is unfertilized chicken eggs alive? What about cow milk? Well there are bacteria in it. What if you get rid of that bacteria? Then some people would not be able to utilize lactose... Also as Bez mentioned rice grains are quiescent, meaning they are in a dormant state and not really "alive" but again depends on how you ...


3

It may be feasible to live without consuming anything that was alive, but it would be incredible difficult. For example, all humans need to consume glucose to survive. Glucose is the only food source used by cells in the brain. Plants are the easiest source of food source for glucose. If we can't get glucose from plants, then we would need to synthesize it ...


34

Living organisms can be divided into hetrotrophs and autotrophs. Autotrophs like plants and algae are able to produce complex organic compounds from relatively simple inorganic components. They are satisfied with sunlight, water and other abiotic stuff and do not need to consume "life". We -- along with all other animals -- are not autotrophs, but ...


2

Your best chance of actually reaching an answer for yourself (*) to this is by parallel. Do you consider independetly-living single-celled organisms alive? This includes bacteria, amoeba, bacteria, some parasites such as plasmodium (the malaria germ), and more. Sperms are not quite independently-living single-celled organisms. They have many things in ...


3

Damn.. this is getting into a huge debate. There are different levels of life. What we mean by living when we say living is generally an Organism. This is highly debatable. If you say viruses are nonliving because they need a host then almost every hetertroph is nonliving because they need the support of autotrophs. An organ is living as long as it ...


2

Sperm, in my opinion can't truly be considered "alive"...but they are living. Bear with me before you skip my answer. A cell can be considered a "living" thing since It has RNA/DNA, it imbibes nutrition, it grows and is destroyed, we cannot say however that it is alive. It has a specific set of instructions coded into the RNA which it follows till its ...


2

Sperm are unquestionably alive, according to all or most sensible definitions of life (They move around, they have goals, they eat things, they die). They are not, however, a human or animal life. Vineet Menon has a shaky grasp of species definitions, and I'd like to correct some misunderstandings. Chromosome number is not that useful in distinguishing ...


3

The question of what is living is nothing but a matter of definition. We can only tell you what are the standard definitions of what is a living thing but no absolute truth exist behind these definitions. Therefore, I am afraid that all discussions here will bring anything new to your ethic or religion related discussion. I want to argue that the @user137's ...


-1

One requirement most biologists have to consider something living is the ability to reproduce. This is why viruses are generally not considered alive. They contain proteins and DNA or RNA, but require infecting a host cell and hijacking its replication machinery to reproduce itself. Fully differentiated sperm cells cannot divide and therefore can't ...



Top 50 recent answers are included