During the last week of January, we had a vibrant three-day workshop at ELSI, with the rather unusual title "Why Life?" "Why `Why Life?'" you may ask. The main idea was to pose the question of the Origins of Life, a central topic of research at ELSI, in a new light. Usually, we start with the fact that there is life, our own life included, and then we wonder how this life has originated. Next, we try to trace back what the Earth may have looked like soon after its formation, in an attempt to figure out what processe may have given rise to the first forms of living matter. But what would change in our ways of questioning if somehow we did not already know that life did emerge?

Strictly speaking, it may be hard to ask the question, given that all of us are alive already. But let us imagine that some kind of alien intelligence, not based on carbon chemistry, perhaps not based on any form of chemistry at all, would investigate the processes that took place on the early Earth. It would be immediately clear that rather complex systems of physical and chemical reactions were going on all the time, from volcanoes erupting to rivers flowing, lighting striking and tornadoes forming from time to time. Many non-equilibrium processes would stand out as playing an important role in sculpting the surface of the Earth, and others would be operating deep inside the Earth, leading eventually to the current form of plate tectonics that leads to continental drift.

But would such an alien intelligence have been able to predict the formation of life, as we know it in biology, as a form of emergent property of physics and chemistry? In other words, would they have been able to give an answer to the question why the non-equilibrium processes on the early Earth, already quite complex in themselves, would have produced systems with a qualitatively vastly more complex nature, the biosphere system with its web of interacting living organisms?

In short, during the workshop we turned the tables, with respect to the original Origins of Life question, from the initial "How did life originate?" to "Why did life originate?"

Why did such an incredible complexity arise, as seen in biology, so much more complex than anything that chemistry alone has shown us? And at least as importantly, why was it possible for such complexity to remain viable over billions of years? The biosphere is the most resilient feature on our planet, with its DNA being older than almost all of the rocks we can find, perhaps even older.

During the workshop, we focused on this "meta" question of "Why Life?", not only in the context of carbon-based chemistry, but also in a wider, more abstract way, trying to address the question of transitions from simpler systems to systems showing far more complex order. One theme during the workshop was the question to what extent such transitions could be considered akin to phase transitions. Another theme was a comparison with the complexity of systems in society: how did cities form, or how did economies came into being?

Apart from short introductions of particular aspects of the "Why Life?" question, the bulk of the three days were dedicated to free-wheeling informal round-table discussions. The photographs above give some impression of the lively nature of the meeting. I want to thank the two dozen or so participants of the workshop, and in particular my co-organizers Jim Cleaves, research scientist at ELSI, and Greg Fournier, postdoctoral fellow at MIT.

Jim Cleaves speaking of "Life and the Origin(s) of Life: An Attempt to Frame the Problem(s)"

Jon Linsay leading the discussion, "Definitions of Life: How Does Biocentrism Cloud Our View?"