Life is anything that dies and grows no longer, i.e., ceases to exist. Computers aren't living, because although they can learn, they don't grow biologically (reproduce), and therefore can't produce offspring (reproduce). The future of the human body is unknown, as there has been no animal species alive which has developed a brain to match that of the primates. The only sure thing about the future of the human body is that it will not reproduce itself, and that it will become extinct without producing another living human being to replace its predecessor.
According to leading biologists, "life exists so as to help life flourish." This means that all life exists to make the world more comfortable for the presently living organisms, and to ensure that future organisms have what they need to survive. Those who deny the purpose of life often claim that such a purposeless life is meaningless. Richard Dawkins, the famous British biologist, and Martin Rees, an Australian philosopher, are among those who think life has no real purpose. Charles Darwin, the great naturalist, and Oliver Strichard Paine, the pamphleteer, also hold a similar view.
It is sometimes said, "What happens to the living things on Earth is not relevant to humans because they are dead." This may seem to imply that life has no meaning or value, but this is a gross misunderstanding of the reality of life. Many plants and animals are dead once they die, but they still have a meaning in the ecosystem in which they live. Plants break down but then come back again in new forms of organisms. Animals perish and then are born again into a new ecosystem that is vital to the continuing progress of all life.
The truth is that the living thing on Earth is the result of millions of years of living thing prior to today's creatures. During the time of the dinosaurs, there were no mammals, and it was not until billions of years later that the first living things were able to develop complex bodies with limbs and brain function. Therefore, it is entirely erroneous to apply the concept of purpose to creatures that never developed any kind of internal reproductive organs, and have never been capable of moving or changing their environments to adjust to changes in their surroundings.
A corollary to this view is the view that humans are indirectly related to all the life existing on Earth. The fact is that the development of every living organism on Earth began through natural causes. Complex multicellular organisms emerged from simple cells, and even in their present state, are still developing. So, when someone says that life exists only for aeons, it is simply nonsense. No one knows what life will look like in the future, but the fact is that it began through natural causes today.
If biologists want to argue that life has a purpose, then they must also concede the fact that all living things are extremely diverse, and that there is absolutely no way to predict what the precise makeup of a species will look like in millions of years. To maintain homeostasis, it would be necessary to have a computer program that could calculate what the makeup of any species in the entire solar system is likely to look like in the future, and then create a blueprint of the solar system for future reference. Theists argue that the function of the universe is to manifest the design of living things, and thus, it can be assumed that the designer of the universe must have a personal pleasure in knowing that all living things are highly diversified and that they have a lot of flexibility to survive and reproduce. And, although some creationists do concede that it is important to know what the composition of the earth-moon system is, they claim that it is irrelevant whether or not these factors affect future humans who will live on it.
In addition to arguing that there is no way to predict the future or even the past, creationists deny the possibility of a spontaneous or random process of creating life. It is argued that all forms of life were designed in the form of complex chemical reactions, and through these reactions, certain forms of life have been made, and only through those same complex chemical reactions, other forms of life have been excluded. Creationists also claim that life is random because it occurs in the universe through random chance. It is suggested that a great number of complex chemical reactions must have happened in order for evolution to have occurred. Although these arguments are compelling, scientists have pointed out that a great number of phenomena that are related to the universe functioning cannot be explained using the theories of chance and random chance alone.
The question of the purpose of life is a central issue in the study of the world. Most people believe that there is a purpose to life, and they have various explanations for this belief. Theistic evolution provides the most common explanation for the meaning of life. According to theistic evolution, God caused the universe to exist and nothing else to exist, then created human life to have a specific purpose in the world, as well as the ability to reproduce and have the same purpose. However, creationists point out that the scientific definition of life contains many definitions of life that contradict this meaning of existence.
I always viewed it another way. I see life as movement. A displacement of one thing for another. I came to this conclusion after realizing that everything we call life is always moving (displacing something to occupy that space). Whether it is what we view as breathing (the soul) to molecules, there is always movement of some sort.
The very act itself when seen in this light demonstrates the underlying nature of life itself is predatory, as something must be shifted to accommodate the invasion taking place.
What makes this dynamic sometimes beautiful is when two or more such forces are complementary to one another, benefiting from the actions of the other.
I have always found the arguments between the creationists and randomnists (yes, I made that a title for them) to be tiring. Neither is capable of demonstrating a proof as to their assertions, and the argument itself in no way aids us because of this. I have always been skeptical of science that uses an unprovable hypothesis, then creates/gives us facts that are derived from the hypothesis. We have seen entire modes of thought erased when such speculatory foundations are used as fact.
But, it's human nature to wonder of such things. Our need to comfort ourselves in the awe of what is taking place both inside of us and outside of us frightening in its power. Classify and pretend it is known so we can relax while pretending we have it all figured out.
Appreciate your presentation. It framed two reference points while leaving it up to the reader to come to conclusions. A nice canvas allowing those of a mind to shed classification truths and feel mortality in the power hidden by our pretensions of knowing things we don't.