530

submitted 3 weeks ago by Phineas_Rage@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

And yet, that wasp will die out in a single generation if it's host disappears. It does most of it's own processing, but it's existence is still contingent on a specific host species. Does that make parasites less alive than other life?

Many insects go through a phase of their lives without a mouth or stomach. They can't eat at all and quickly starve. Are they less alive?

Most life would die out if the sun stopped shining. Does that make chemotrophic organisms more alive than phototrophic life?

Chemotrophic life still needs chemicals to eat, and are completely useless without them. Does that make a Boltzmann Brain the most alive thing possible, coming into existence without any outside action whatsoever?

Plants depend on the sun for energy, animals depend on plants for carbohydrates, we depend on animals and plants for carbs and proteins, mayflies depend on stored energy from their larval stage, parasites depend on other organisms for transportation, food, protection, parenting, and even homeostasis. Viruses depending on other cells for reproduction doesn't seem out of place to me.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 0 points 3 weeks ago

Consuming resources is a definitive characteristic of living things. Scienctists had to define what life is and viruses just don't click enough boxes. It's the same as astronomers determining what is a planet vs a dwarf planet vs an asteroid or mathematicians deciding that 1 isn't a prime number. There has to be a hard cutoff at some point.

Viruses are rogue genetic material that insert themselves into a host cell and hijack all it's processes and metabolism. Calling them a living thing is like calling malware a computer, or a joke between friends a movie.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, a definition of life in Namibia for a grade 12 course. Quite the scientific authority you have there.

Here's a short paper (Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 32, 387-393, 2002) that refutes your position that a single definition of life is definitively agreed upon.

Here's a paper (Synthese, 2012) on how a definition of life is impossible and pointless.

There is a species of dog that infects other dogs as a parasite. There are viruses with larger genomes than some bacteria. Obligate parasites and endosymbiotes often lose large portions of their genome and depend on their hosts for their vital functions. Nature doesn't care about are definitions, and biology hates hard cutoffs.