When biology emerged as a distinct science in the early nineteenth century there was a change of focus. Previously the study of living things was undertaken alongside the study of everything to be found in the natural world. This formed the field of natural history.
The phrase is continued in the name of a number of venerable museums. To this day, the displays in museums of natural history encompass things from the whole of the natural environment and sometimes beyond. Meteorites, for example, can also be seen in these museums. Although they have come from outer space, they landed on the Earth and, having entered our natural world, belong to the purview natural historian.
Here the name ‘historian’ should clarified. It does not refer somebody who has studied past events. Many of the exhibits in museums of natural history are about things from the past. Fossil skeletons are popular exhibits. This may give the impression that the ‘history’ in natural history relates to the past. Instead, the word ‘history’ has its origins in the Greek word ‘historia’, which means "inquiry, or knowledge gained from inquiry".
One of the scientific questions that early biologists thought they would be able to resolve was ‘What is Life?’ Attempting to answer this question has yielded a variety of answers and limited dividends as far as that specific question goes. What we have learned from the attempt has been how difficult it is to define. Faced with such a difficulty, the focus of biologists has become directed towards the characteristics and features demonstrated by living things rather than life itself.
But, is the difficulty the question itself? ‘What is life?’ may be a hard question to answer but it may also be a poor question to ask. When asking questions, it is advisable to ask what those questions mean? And to ask, whether they even make any sense? Importantly, we should have a notion of how the question might at least be addressed and where the answer may lie.
At a museum of natural history we can look at exhibits and tell immediately which were once living and which - like meteorites - never were. Yet we cannot provide a formal definition of life. This may also be the fault of what we require of a formal definition.
One may change to more meaningful questions like ‘What is life like?’, ‘What are the common characteristics demonstrated by living things?’ etc. Questions like ‘What is life about?’ do not, on the surface, seem very scientific. However, upon careful consideration may be more scientific than ‘What is life?’
We may address the question ‘What is life about?’ in a materialistic way by suggesting that life is about, what may be called, the Darwinian imperatives: Survival and Reproduction. Organisms strive to survive at least until they have performed a reproductive act. (For some insects, of course, the male is eaten in the act!) This opens up a rich field of intellectual inquiry. How one understands the organism and its component structures is then seen in the light of these twin imperatives and the parts played in survival and reproduction.
There are, of course, other ways of addressing the question ‘What is life about?’ I think of these as complementary, rather than alternative, ways of addressing the question. There is no single way of addressing this question to the exclusion of all others.
