Life passé? I don't know about that. Not for me. The alternative, "death", has been done to death. Passé would still be an improvement over this, no? I would argue, probably not what you meant, that "life" as a term used in science (and even perhaps even in common use) for distinguishing "living" from "nonliving" things is definitely passé. Biologists, physicists, computer and information scientists, chemists, even philosophers have never been able to produce a definition of "life" that includes everything common sense tells us is "alive" without also embarassingly including some things we don't consider alive; alternatively, definitions that aim to be exclusive do so at the cost of including some things we do consider "life". "Life" seems, after all this time, and after all our knowledge and talking about it, more like a "I'll know it when I see it" thing than a really definable thing. Effectively, it's an outdated "folk" term that has carried over, but is ultimately incoherent and not particularly useful. There simply isn't a hard and fast behavioural or chemical distinction between living and nonliving things. We're dealing with the same basic chemistry and physical laws on both kinds of systems. It's hard to define because the distinction isn't there.