The difference between living nature and not living

Are there any qualitative differences between living and non-living nature. Most likely it's all we came up with. The world is one and harmonious and only in our "sick" imagination can be divided into categories and names.
Moreover, the world can be designated as eternal, in the sense of existing for a very, very long time without changes. I think this is his main task. Existence, no matter what. Because all living things tend to survive and fight for life.
Not living nature is eternal, since it does not threaten anything. Well, maybe that will crumble on atoms. But how to dissipate, and will be gathered back. Similar to the like.
The living itself constantly reproduces himself for existence, he needs only a program. The program, written on non-living nature, will exist as long as there are atoms. Of course, if as we assumed our world to turn into separate atoms, I consider such an option unlikely, all information will be lost too. But, if any particles are saved, then life can survive. The carrier of information will again fall into the environment favorable for life and life will resume its existence according to the program of development and action.
Therefore, the difference between living and non-living nature is management. Not a living nature, not controlled by an add-on program. It is based on one's own qualities. The living nature has no qualities, only performs commands from the outside.