Humans apply taxonomy to nature, useful but ultimately flawed models.
Reality seems to be continuum, nature does whatever works and has no concern for neat categories.
My opinion is viruses are "alive" as they are unique replicating and evolving genetic code that can be identified distinctly from the host.
Other opinions are they must have other biological process to be considered "alive". The debate does not seem to be settled, its pretty similar to the is Pluto a planet, again another human taxonomy that not everything in nature fits neatly into.
I think as we discover more of the universe our definition of life will probably need to evolve. Already our computers make us question the definition, when will software become "alive" or "conscious". We already sometimes speak in terms of "biological" or "organic" based life.
Except no one normally says that. Also inactivate connotates it can be reactivated, destroy would probably be the better word for something not considered alive at least for lay people. I know some people worry inactive viruses in vaccines can reactivate and infect you.
Then again most people will just say kill since the same agents that kill bacteria and other fully agreed upon microscopic life forms tend to work similarly on viruses.
They told me at school that viruses are not life forms. But, that is a good point I suppose, and, should want to know how that is determined "is it alive"?
[+] [-] SigmundA|6 years ago|reply
Humans apply taxonomy to nature, useful but ultimately flawed models.
Reality seems to be continuum, nature does whatever works and has no concern for neat categories.
My opinion is viruses are "alive" as they are unique replicating and evolving genetic code that can be identified distinctly from the host.
Other opinions are they must have other biological process to be considered "alive". The debate does not seem to be settled, its pretty similar to the is Pluto a planet, again another human taxonomy that not everything in nature fits neatly into.
I think as we discover more of the universe our definition of life will probably need to evolve. Already our computers make us question the definition, when will software become "alive" or "conscious". We already sometimes speak in terms of "biological" or "organic" based life.
[+] [-] alamortsubite|6 years ago|reply
Sorry this really doesn't answer your question, but "inactivate" is probably more accurate than "kill."
[+] [-] SigmundA|6 years ago|reply
Then again most people will just say kill since the same agents that kill bacteria and other fully agreed upon microscopic life forms tend to work similarly on viruses.
[+] [-] tic_tac|6 years ago|reply
Alive is just a word. It means different things to different people and any formal definition will necessarily be arbitrary.
[+] [-] zzo38computer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]