You're viewing a single thread.
Isn't metabolism one definition of life? If so, they're not alive.
They actually don't have a metabolism, that's why they don't fall into the definition of life in the first place.
Source Wikipedia: "Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell"
Man, all these biologists going on about cell structure are in for a rude awakening when we run into silicon based life forms. Or even Commander Data
A rude awakening? Maybe. But a fascinating one!!
Why can't they be fascinated and produce a universalisable definition now? How am I supposed to trust their opinion of whether a virus is alive if they can't even get Commander Data right? Commander Data is way easier to philosophically understand than a virus.
Sorry, I'm unfortunately too much of a literal, analytical thinker to continue this line of joking. Maybe I don't even fall into the definition of life myself, who knows...
I'm not joking, I genuinely disagree with the mainstream classification of viruses and Commander Data is genuinely an important cultural symbol for these issues.
Ah OK, I couldn't tell. So what would you say would be a better definition and what would you like to see included? I'm not really familiar with Data, maybe some background would be helpful...
Life is that which acts to secure its own existence or that of its kind.
Hm, I see how this would be universal. But at how do you define 'secure its own existence'? Is the sun a living being because it keep on burning? Are some chemical reactions that preserve the environment they are happening in living beings? Are any cyclical reactions or maybe even the nutrient cycles or water cycles living beings? The more you get into the details of what life is and isn't, the more you see that it probably isn't a binary distinction between living and not living.
Yeah. Stars and fire are alive. They have homeostasis. They reproduce. They can even grow and evolve. You can give birth to a little fire with a spark and some tinder, and when it's older you can feed it kindling. Eventually when it's big and strong, you can give it a big log to eat. That seems alive to me.
I don't really get how the water cycle acts to secure its own existence, but if you can explain it you'll persuade me it's alive.
You commented twice
They're checking the 'can reproduce' box for whether their comment alive or not.
Weird, i didn't even got a server timeout, which is usualy the cause.