What qualifies as life?

[sub]

Scientists have discovered that viruses can themselves become infected with other viruses. This has reignited the debate over whether or not viruses should be considered living.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/06/scivirus106.xml

Now, I was always taught in school that viruses weren't alive. This never sat well with me and I'm glad that the scientific community is still debating the issue.

What do you guys think? What do you think should be the definition of what it means to be alive? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Zeonix]

You don't draw a line. Everything is alive, and perhaps everything has a degree of consciousness.

 

[Barney]

You don't draw a line. Everything is alive, and perhaps everything has a degree of consciousness.

I think that's a little far fetched. I don't think a brick has a life. Unless by everything you mean humans and animals and plants.

 

[Prozac]

basically everything that consumes "energy" (food/sunlight etc.) in order to continue to exist is considered alive by me.

 

[Zeonix]

I think that's a little far fetched. I don't think a brick has a life. Unless by everything you mean humans and animals and plants.

Everyone knows humans, animals and plants are alive. It's when you start to zoom in and out from our everyday lives that people begin to say certain things can't be alive. Are we any different from a brick when you break both things down to their simplest forms? Are molecules alive? Are atoms alive? What are they if not lesser forms of life? Is the Earth alive?

"What qualifies as life?" is an interesting question, but it may be on the same level as asking, "When does hot become cold?" or "When does soft become hard?" It's really just a matter of perspective.

On a broader note, it seems to me that what we constitute as being alive is based only on the processes we are most familiar with, and what we can identify with. This is precisely why we're going to have a hard time finding extraterrestrial life, or more importantly, sentient life elsewhere in the Universe. We're constantly on the search for life as we know it, but that search may cause us to overlook forms of life that we've never come into contact with.

 

[Barney]

Okay. But through the perspective of a brick is it alive? The molecules may be alive, the atoms may be alive, but those are molecules and atoms. Not a brick.

 

[Chakra-X]

Maybe it's a different type of life? Maybe there is a gray area. Who are we to say that something either living or non living?

Also, according to today's youth, if you don't have a girlfriend, don't go out, or take risks, you have no life.

 

[Zeonix]

Okay. But through the perspective of a brick is it alive? The molecules may be alive, the atoms may be alive, but those are molecules and atoms. Not a brick.

What is a brick when broken down to its simplest form? What is anything when you break it down that far? We're all made of the same stuff. To say that, separately, the particles that an object is made of is alive, but once they're put together to form what we perceive as an object, it is no longer alive seems a little silly to me.

But again, it's just a matter of perspective. What is cold to you may not be to me, and what is hot to me may not be to you.

 

[Prozac]

Engine parts, separated, are useless. ( dead )
But when put them together into a working machine, they become alive.


I think it's the same thing with atoms and molecules, they are not alive, however they are the building blocks of the cells who are alive.
( I hope this makes sense, would be easier to type out in Dutch )

 

[Zeonix]

Are atoms and molecules useless without forming what we deem to be life? Take a look around and I think the answer becomes quite clear.

 

[Prozac]

it obviously isn't a perfect metaphor.

however you should understand what it means.

 

[Zeonix]

I know what you mean. I just respectfully disagree.

 

[Smith]

"Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

Bricks aren't alive.

 

[sub]

Indeed. I agree with you on a lot of things Zeo, but how you can argue that a brick is alive is beyond me. I don't see the point you're trying to prove.

I personally like Prozac's engine metaphor. Let's say that metal is a component in an engine, if you found that metal in the ground by itself, you wouldn't call it an engine, you'd call it metal. It can be used to create an engine, but that doesn't automatically make it an engine.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I personally find Viruses to be the most primitive form of life there is, but calling them alive grants other similar things "organism" status. Prions are something I wouldn't categorize as alive.

Interesting to note, I see Zeonix's point. However, I think he picked the worst thing possible to argue his point from: the brick. Assuming I am right, of course, his metaphor for life would expand to things like fire. Fire consumes, reproduces, and spreads much like something living would. The earth itself, with it's constant growth and movement, even it's vulcan heart and blood, seem to be a set of systems which continually move and shift in a way which no longer makes it truly inert.

An interesting philosophical argument, but we won't be settling this age old dilemma here.

 

[sub]

I don't know. I don't think classifying Viruses as life would force us to classify Prions as life. We know very little at Prions so at the very least, we'd need to learn more.

Anyways, I see what Zeo is getting at now. I still disagree, but I understand what he's saying.

Oh, and a tad off topic, but back to the original link I posted about viruses being able to get infected with other viruses, it does make you think. Can the viruses that infect other viruses be infected themselves? Where does it end, you know? It'd be cool if in the future, we could artificially engineer viruses to combat other viruses.

 

[Chakra-X]

It'd be cool if in the future, we could artificially engineer viruses to combat other viruses.

Like...****fighting?

Actually, that makes me think...Is it possible to create artificial viruses?

 

[sub]

Why not? We can clone animals. We could probably due a whole lot more if that type of research wasn't taboo.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Like...****fighting?

Actually, that makes me think...Is it possible to create artificial viruses?

Yes it is, and the practice is quite strong in the bio weapon areas.

A virus is nothing more than RNA or DNA wrapped in a protein shell that acts like a hyperdermic needle. It prevents the insides from spilling out, and it breaches the outer membrane of the target cells. If you can combine the right DNA and RNA strands, and supply it with a protien wrap that will interface with a cell wall, you have a designer virus.

In fact, an artificial bacterium nucleus was created a while back, which I imagine would be harder than a virus.

The most common method of programming viruses is to splice genes from other virii into the target particle, giving it properties you want.

Good examples are mixed small pox strains that cause decades old vaccinations against non-weaponized natural strains to fail. Efficacy can drop from 98% effectiveness, to 50% or less.

Scary stuff, but it can be done.

 

[sub]

I don't understand why we're preserving wiped out diseases. It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me. The last I heard, we lost track of some of the strains that Soviet Russia had before they collapsed.

edit: Yep
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/smallpox/article_em.htm