Are viruses living beings?

No, they don't reproduce on their own. They always need a host.

they are in terms of being biological information

>>9111412
Sure.

File: school-like-1950s_eb5e60b06351577e.jpg (143KB, 1400x788px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1400x788px

>>9111412
It disturbs me that this thread comes up every few days, as this is something we covered back when I was in elementary school.

Anyways, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, they taught us there are seven requirements for life:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components and decomposing organic matter. 4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

[This could go up to 10 requirements, depending on where you were skooled.]

Suffice to say, viruses fail on multiple fronts here (some more than others), and thus fall into that 'gray area' of almost living, but not quite. (With some theories even suggesting that they could even be proto-life, but then you get into chickens and eggs.)

The other problem I have with this damned elementary school level science question coming up every few days is: Why does it matter? Are we going to start treating viruses more "humanely" because we define them as alive? Cuz we aren't any kinder to bacteria, and they qualify as life just fine.

>>9111412
Nah, they're more like robotic automatons or asian people.

>>9111502
Why does anything matter?

>>9111502
But they move and do shit on their own

>>9111553
So trees and Stephen Hawking aren't examples of life?

>>9111412
Are jews humans? I think you have your answer. No need to thanks /pol/. Viruses aren't living beings.

Are human beings alive?

They use the Earth as a host, and are unable to replicate unless they're within their host.

>>9111557
No, Hawking is a god

>>9111596
[citation needed]

No, though the label and criteria are manmade, and don't really have any meaning besides categorization. They qualify in some aspects, but not in most like >>9111502 says. In my opinion, a far more interesting question is the origin of viruses themselves.

Are prions living beings?

>>9111412
They're an RNA-protein network.

>>9111633
>Are proteins living beings
Given that they don't have a metabolism, do not grow, do not adapt to their environment, do not respond to stimuli, and do not maintain homeostasis, I would say no.

>>9111661
No. You're an RNA-protein network!

>>9111633
prions are fucked proteins what fuck kinda question is that shit nigga

>>9111553
>But they move and do shit on their own
No they don't, they just float around in a metastable state until they hit something
https://youtu.be/210dHOdmJVI?t=8m39s

>>9111412
It depends on how you define life.

Is a sperm a living being?

Are parasites living beings?

Are atoms living beings?

Are memes living beings?

>>9111823
>Are memes living beings?
DUH

It's not like there's an actual manual for everything. Things are what they are, we just like to classify

>>9111557
Saying that something is alive because it moves on it's own doesn't imply that all things that are alive have to, it's a property that exhibits life but that is not necessary for life

File: 6ypwT4E.jpg (319KB, 1536x1677px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1536x1677px

I never liked the term "living". We just wonder whether or not reality fits our arbitary criterions for the term and end up arguing semantics. Reality should define terms instead.
I just prefer "replicators".

File: zSdOP68.jpg (54KB, 460x455px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 460x455px

>>9111412

The cell is both living and the fundamental unit of the living.

Viruses are neither biological cells nor made up of cells.

No.
Viruses do not have their own cell machinery. It's like calling an operating system a computer.

>>9111502
Good post

The conditions of life are arbitrary, that is set from a human perspective. While viruses may not be considered "alive", the display many attributes which many would consider to be life. Self-replicating, evolution, self-preservation.

Yeah they don't metabolise on their own. They need a host cell. Well most of "life" depends on the mitochondria and chloroplasts. Strip away most of the cell, until you get a nucleolus, which could survive on its own and that's a virus.

>>9111412

Yes they're called psychopaths

They are ascended being. Oxygen suckers are inferior beings

>>9111502
Quality post. Could have added a meme here and there though.

Yes, it has DNA/RNA and complex biochemistry, it replicates and creates its own little capsules to spread itself.

Whether something is a living thing or not is ambiguous, though a virus is deep into the "grey area", it is not just some random amino acids reacting with each other.

haha who the fuck here /RNA world/ ?

>>9111502
>thinking the half baked shit they use to poorly explain life to children holds up to theoretical life science.
arbitrary bullshit/=! life.
Give me a reason, or fuck off with your stamp collection.

>>9111418
THIS. but more than biological information, biological Meaning-making. Viruses have biosemiotics