Viruses

[Pein and Pleasure]

In modern science an organism must meet certain requirements to be considered "alive". They must:

1. Be able to reproduce either sexually or asexually
2. Absorb and use energy
3. Age/Die
4. Respond to the environment

Most life meets all of the requirements, however viruses do not. They evolve (often rapidly) and interact with their environment, they die, and they use energy. However, a virus is different from other organisms in that they do not reproduce sexually like most creatures the average human is aware of, and they do not reproduce asexually like bacteria. Viruses aren't even single celled organisms, instead they are scraps of DNA that float around the microscopic world and attack cells. They are designed to break through and penetrate cells (called host cells) and inject their DNA into the cytoplasm of the cell. A cell reproduces asexually, copying itself into millions of other cells that are genetically identical. Once the DNA is in the cytoplasm, the virus forces the cell to expend all of its energy (proteins, glucose, etc.) to produce genetic copies of the virus instead of genetic copies of the cell. The viruses are produced within the cell and soon the cell explodes as it cannot hold any more viruses, and these go forth to infect more host cells.

The virus meets three of the four requirements of life, and does reproduce, but not in a way that the scientific community will consider "alive". However, it does meet the requirement that it must be able to die in order to be considered alive, doesn't something have to be alive in the first place in order to die, or am I just being too literal?

What are your opinions on this topic? ninja  

[kana-hoshi]

Okay I looked at your argument and I don't think that the requirements for life should be changed or that viruses shouldn't be classified as a lifeform. I'm not a scientist or anything near it, but I think that something does not need to fit all of the rules in order to be alive. Besides, you could say that viruses do reproduce using the cell, since the cell makes the virus and therefore it can multiply  

[vendetta01]

I do agree that viruses do meet some of the living requirements, but I don't consider them to be basically of any real importance since they are single-celled microscopic organisms. I do regard them as technically living, but not really that significant like a dog or another person  

[midnight-mystic-dragon]

wow, that's...scary and amazing at the same time.  

[tickledpink6291]

haha...I was talking to a friend about viruses about a month ago since both of us love chem and bio. We both concluded that they were the real "zombies" of the human world, except they weren't alive to begin with.

I honestly don't think that the requirements for life should be changed just so that viruses can be counted as living. We don't really know that much about viruses yet besides the fact that they have a protein coat, have DNA, and other various tidbits about them. We will need to know more to see why they don't produce asexually or sexually, much less try to stop them.  

[wingedbunnie]

From what I know, Viruses do not reproduce, they replicate, and in a manner than is strikingly similar to most parasites that are known. I'd vote that they're not alive, because without a host, they do not grow and are sometimes not even active. Many of them can only use one type of host (animal, plant, bacteria) to mutate, also, which would be more proof of them being alive if they weren't so limited in its usage.
As for the requirements of life, I don't think they need to be changed. They're pretty good for everything but viruses, and viruses are so small that it's hard to believe they can be alive, anyway.  

[tickledpink6291]

Oh...I completely forgot.......

The reason we can't stop them is because they mutate like crazy. There is no set pattern that they normally are in, either. That's why only one strain of flu is vaccinated every year and so on...

The person who finds out exactly what patterns that viruses like to mutate in with be filthy filthy rich.  

[nuwa]

Hmm interesting it almost relates to the topic I heard on the radio the other day saying that viruses can talk to one another. That they are living just like a person or an animal. Kind of wierd dont you think?  

[Sylphi]

This topic does not strike me as something about which it is possible to really have an opinion. The data on viruses is fairly clear--they are packets of information with the ability to cause an organism to replicate them.

Viruses are made up of the stuff of life, but are not themselves alive. Mysterious and all, but I don't see much valid opining to be done on the subject.  

[IThanatopsisI]

I've known this since 6th grade that viruses were quite an exception to the traditional traits of what constitutes an organism.

They're interesting to read about.
 

[clipclop]

viruses are not living. nothing on computers are living. hehehe... (computerr viruses get it?) soz.. lame joke..

hmm.. i agree with scientists classifying viruses as nonliving. after all.. it is just a "packet of data" a lot of things are 3 out of 4 on those things. you would never think of them as living. like... uhh.. something... i don't remember..

that's what i get for having that can o' red bull.. crying  

[wingedbunnie]

Sylphi

This topic does not strike me as something about which it is possible to really have an opinion. The data on viruses is fairly clear--they are packets of information with the ability to cause an organism to replicate them.

Viruses are made up of the stuff of life, but are not themselves alive. Mysterious and all, but I don't see much valid opining to be done on the subject.

And yet, while they do replicate only, the similarities between the virus's replication and any random animal's reproduction are surprisingly similar. This is the main thing that people can base their opinions off of, it just depends on how similar they see the virus's replication stage to the average living creature's reproduction cycle. Some people may feel that viruses have been misclassified as nonliving creatures when, to them, it has met all the requirements to being considered alive.

A virus can be considered living if it is inside of a host, because then it is active and all prior requirements are met. The only real thing that keeps scientists from classifying them in the same category as animals is the fact that without a host they are most definitely not alive.
So then creates the question: if a virus spent its whole "life" in a host, would it then be considered "alive"? For example, what if a virus, like the Huntington's Virus was "born" into a host cell, and lived dormant inside of it until it was miraculously found by scientists and subsequently "killed" before it could ever leave the host? Well, the dormancy of the virus might give one plenty of arguement to state that the virus is not alive because it is not active, so how about instead we use a virus like (uhhh...) the AIDs virus? I'm not sure if I'm right here, but I think this virus can be active inside of a host cell without killing it instantly.  

[Aqua_Chica]

maybe they are technically dead, but something in the human body brings them back to life, like a kind of activator....  

[iLord Vader]

infernal_sin

In modern science an organism must meet certain requirements to be considered "alive". They must:

1. Be able to reproduce either sexually or asexually
2. Absorb and use energy
3. Age/Die
4. Respond to the environment

Most life meets all of the requirements, however viruses do not. They evolve (often rapidly) and interact with their environment, they die, and they use energy. However, a virus is different from other organisms in that they do not reproduce sexually like most creatures the average human is aware of, and they do not reproduce asexually like bacteria. Viruses aren't even single celled organisms, instead they are scraps of DNA that float around the microscopic world and attack cells. They are designed to break through and penetrate cells (called host cells) and inject their DNA into the cytoplasm of the cell. A cell reproduces asexually, copying itself into millions of other cells that are genetically identical. Once the DNA is in the cytoplasm, the virus forces the cell to expend all of its energy (proteins, glucose, etc.) to produce genetic copies of the virus instead of genetic copies of the cell. The viruses are produced within the cell and soon the cell explodes as it cannot hold any more viruses, and these go forth to infect more host cells.

The virus meets three of the four requirements of life, and does reproduce, but not in a way that the scientific community will consider "alive". However, it does meet the requirement that it must be able to die in order to be considered alive, doesn't something have to be alive in the first place in order to die, or am I just being too literal?

What are your opinions on this topic? ninja

Well, cells and bacteria are considered 'alive', right? Aren't viruses, or at least some, made up of certain bacteria?  

[Jaaku-san]

I personally don't think of viruses as living creatures; their incomplete nature and complete inability to reproduce on their own makes it almost impossible for me. If it makes it easier, don't think of viruses as "dieing" think of them as being destroyed.