We need a poll: is a virus alive?

[Goodheart]

I vote no.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

1. Yes.

Ever heard the term "attenuated ?"

[Goodheart]

3. Yes, I have, but I don't know what point you're trying to make.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

23. What I meant is that it's not alive and kicking in the normal sense

that we think of when we classify something as being a living organism. "Is it alive ?" Well, we still don't have a clear guideline, much less a universally agreed upon standard by which to say yes or no.

There's been a raging (Bad choice of words !) debate about whether viruses are a living thing or not since long before I was in school (and that was back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth). One of my Dons used to say that a virus is alive, but attenuated, in that it is weakened just below the thresh hold of that we can say with certainty (a BIG word in science) is alive. So, the debate goes on and on.

Am I making any sense ? I think I phrased this whole thing in a confusing manner. Sorry.

[Celerity]

26. attenuated does not automatically mean what is being attenuated is alive

it simply means reduced in strength, and is often used to refer to inanimate things

[Haggis for Breakfast]

29. See my previous post.

As I said, I probably worded this in the most confusing manner possible.

And I was relying on information from a lecture decades ago when I was at university. I think the point the Don was trying to make is that viruses remain much of a mystery to us and that the debate about whether or not they are alive, was something that will require a greater understanding and light years of research before we truly understand them. It was his opinion that they were alive, but "attenuated."

[Celerity]

30. I think we need a concrete definition of what life is in order to answer the question definitively

I tend to come down on the side that it is SOME form of quasi life, but I can see this entire subject spiralling into an endless ontological debate.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

31. Agreed.

[Celerity]

33. +1 thanks for the replies

[Haggis for Breakfast]

34. Whenever I fail to be clear or make a mistake or put out bad intel,

I always want to respond to clarify or apologize - whatever is appropriate.

When I retired from the military, I went to work for the US Public Health Service (PHS) at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. That is what sparked my curiosity about viruses. AIDS/Ebola/Marburg, etc. I was fascinated by the science. That something like a virus (or a retro-virus) could wreck such havoc and catastrophe on the human body. And that we were so defenseless, that our immune systems could be so out-maneuvered and co-opted . . . I need to stop this thing or the post will end up being pages long.

[Celerity]

35. much appreciated

[msongs]

2. poll the virus lol nt

[grantcart]

5. Well it would have to be activated first lol

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. No idea, but worth bookmarking to see the comments.

[RockRaven]

6. No, but for convenience we should discuss them as if they are and treat them as if they are...

Or we could re-define the conventional definitions of "alive" and "life" used in biological sciences.

[SheltieLover]

10. This!👆

[GeorgiaPeanut]

7. A virus does not meet the definition of life fully

which require food consumption, metabolism, homeostasis, respiration, procreation and evolution.

However, it meets Koch's postulates.

[grantcart]

8. Not until it becomes activated by attaching to a cell

[milestogo]

9. I would say anything that can put the whole world on its timetable is very much alive -

Depending on how you define alive.

[Zambero]

11. Genetic particle

It cannot replicate on it's own, since it requires a host cell to create new copies of itself. I would hazard a guess that viruses are the lowest life form, although an even lower lowlife has been showing up at "press briefings" as of late.

[Goodheart]

12. That's all very interesting, but you didn't vote!

[Zambero]

19. Just did!

Live virus?

[napi21]

13. Yes. Living, eating & destroying peoples lungs everywhere. n/t

[unblock]

14. it's really a question of semantics in that we know what a virus is

it can't replicate without a host cell.

so the question really is, is "alive" a term we want to apply to such a thing?

personally, i don't really care, i'm fine with it not technically being "alive".

are mushrooms "vegetables"? technically, no, they're fungi. but people eat them as if they're vegetables so whatever....

[qazplm135]

15. prions aren't alive

but they can cause disease. I think a virus is closer to a prion than a life form. But it certainly straddles the line.

[jberryhill]

16. Well, the Evangelicals seem opposed to eradicating it, so it has the "pro-lifers" on its side

[MLAA]

17. Lol. Good one.

[Dem2]

18. I heard someone describe it as a very large molecule

Not sure how a large molecule can be defined as "life".

[Baclava]

20. Are seeds alive? They have the potential for life, under the right conditions, but can die

They are parasitic life seeds, thats what I think, viruses need a host to reproduce, and they have the DNA/RNA to make major changes to any cell they invade to produce all the energy needed to do that.

The debate rages on

[Goodheart]

22. I vote YES on the seed.

What is life?

Who am I without you by my side?

[lastlib]

36. George Lives!!

[greyl]

21. This isn't one of those things determined by polling of public opinion, is it? nt

[DavidDvorkin]

24. First we have to agree on a definition of "alive".

[Celerity]

27. +100000

[NurseJackie]

28. Maybe the OP is asking if it's sentient... if it knows what it's doing... planning, scheming, etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. It Reproduces

Subbed science in late Feb and 8th graders were learning viruses.
The textbook said it meets the definition of life insofar as it's capable of reproducing.
So, in a limited sense, it seems yes.
But, no metabolism, no respiration, no consumption.
So it's a VERY different form of life.

[whistler162]

32. Yes and since this one is 19 it can vote!