Are Infectious Viruses Actually Alive?

What is the truth about viruses? They evolve, grow, and can be killed by our immune system, but are they actually alive? Learn all about these ferocious little things in this new episode of SciShow, hosted by Michael Aranda!
SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/... to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtang...
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Silas Emrys, Drew Hart, Jeffrey Mckishen, James Knight, Christoph Schwanke, Jacob, Matt Curls, Christopher R Boucher, Eric Jensen, Adam Brainard, Nazara, Growing Violet, Ash, Laura Sanborn, Sam Lutfi, Piya Shedden, Katie Marie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, charles george, Alex Hackman, Chris Peters, Kevin Bealer, Alisa Sherbow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
doi.org/10.108...
doi.org/10.101...
doi.org/10.100...
doi.org/10.101...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
doi.org/10.109...
doi.org/10.151...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
doi.org/10.101...
doi.org/10.101...
doi.org/10.101...
doi.org/10.103...
doi.org/10.230...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
doi.org/10.101...
doi.org/10.100...
doi.org/10.112...
Image Source
www.istockphot...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.istockphot...
www.istockphot...
www.istockphot...
www.istockphot...
www.istockphot...

[@SciShow]

As someone kindly pointed out, "Mitochondria" is spelled incorrectly at 3:21!

[@Van-Leo]

what not gonna reupload for that too? lol

[@KateeAngel]

Can you make a video about transferable cancers, which can infect other individuals of the same species, and whether they are their own species?

[@cambrown5633]

Damn it American school system, you had one job!

[@co9681]

@Liam Johnson Tensorflow projects have life 😳

[@masonp1314]

I had a really weird question, but *why* does life *need* to be carbon based? If a 3D printer could build every piece that it's made of, and assemble them, and then send it off to copy itself again... Put it on Mars, to refine the metal in the soil, and let it modify it's own code randomly

[@Anonymous-zk4wp]

How to make biologists fight each other Step 1: Ask wether a virus is alive or not

[@tarmaque]

Please only do so in a safe room with no sharp edges or blunt objects.

[@NeoTechni]

@@tarmaque help, one broke a petri dish in half and stabbed me.

[@aamirrazak3467]

@@tarmaque or dangerous chemicals or machines

[@zionantoine9629]

Yipppp

[@Lukiel666]

And if they say they are alive, ask them about prions.

[@nihilusdirus]

My sister has been a microbiologist for 12 years and she gets HEATED whenever people try to argue that viruses aren’t alive. She’s always been on team “alive, just evolving from a different kind of tree altogether” and I’m glad this video is finally addressing these arguments

[@busyrand]

I hate to say it... But I disagree with your sister, and would love to have a Nerdy argument back and forth about the distinctions and classifications of things. I'm okay with everything not being alive. I see everything as a series of chemical compounds arranged in cool ways, so it's still fascinating to me.

[@MisterEcks]

@whesley hynes love em or hate em this man's speaking.... er..

[@mushmush4980]

Considering that viruses evolve (albeit by mutating rapidly) and have their own taxonomy, it can count as life. I draw the line at replicating organic chemistry strings, viroids are on a thin line. For all we know, viruses are just RNA strings accidentally snipped out from bacteria that just continued to mutate until it was either a pseudo bacteriaesque string or even further: basic metabolic chemistry. Life can't evolve itself into death, but it may just be on a spectrum.

[@lawlerzwtf]

@@mushmush4980 Viruses can't replicate on their own (they need other organisms to reproduce) and their mutations are caused by their hosts. They also don't need energy to keep existing. They are not alive.

[@regulatorjohnson.]

@whesley hynes you should wipe the drool off your chin before it drips on your shirt and your mother has to clean it

[@zeekjones1]

"How can a non-living thing evolve?" Future robot overlords have entered chat.

[@Ghandjaloodah]

XD

[@otaviocamanho1135]

well, if it does have a conscience, if it is self aware, it can be considered alive for sure, even being a robot, or being on the internet or whatever

[@mauigonz]

@@otaviocamanho1135 They can evolve without self awareness (example: The algorythm)

[@VicMikesvideodiary]

@@mauigonz I think you mean just awareness of some kind and not self awareness.

[@user-ct6jz3im2o]

@@otaviocamanho1135 they can be considered a person but not alive in terms of biology. But the definitions could change. Who knows.

[@markmidwest7092]

9:28 "The way we frame things can influence the kinds of questions we ask." This little tidbit is a truism and, even though this video is extremely interesting, is the biggest takeaway from a KZbin video I've ever experienced and applies to every walk of life and every discipline. I would like to think I've known this for a while but this is worded so well. Golden wisdom. Thank you.

[@joshcheatham9424]

I've had roommates who don't meet the requirements to be classified as a living creature.

[@mightywhite360]

Ive dated girls that dont meet the criteria to be considered alive. At least not in bed.

[@stixinst5791]

@@mightywhite360 should we call the police?

[@stefanb6539]

Try cleaning

[@Weathercold]

@@mightywhite360 body pillows?

[@mightywhite360]

@@stixinst5791 I mean, you can if you like, but I dont see how theyre gonna help my poor taste in women.

[@NecrozmaJade]

War flashbacks to when I was walking in the park behind a college-age kid who was lecturing his girlfriend on how bacteria can't possibly be alive "because it's not an animal or plant, the two kingdoms of life."

[@haroldbn6816]

LoL, I would have stepped in saying: excuse you, hold my Archea.

[@DasAntiNaziBroetchen]

Ah yes, the two kingdoms of life. Animal and plant.

[@northwestpassage6234]

@@haroldbn6816 no you wouldn’t have, we all know you’re far too socially inept to have stepped into a stranger’s conversation.

[@iliketurtles6777]

@@northwestpassage6234 he did pretty good in this one🤓

[@northwestpassage6234]

@@iliketurtles6777 wow, you’re right the anonymous internet interactions are just like real life!

[@bamboolaceway]

Back in High School, my Biology teacher told us that "Scientists are people who ask questions." It is, well, absolutely true. From the simplest, "Why is the sky blue?" to "Why are sunsets red and orange?" it is the questions a scientist asks that propel our knowledge forward. Great video, thanks for the great content.

[@Vampwatch1462]

It's like what George Carlin said. "You know the Sanctity of Life doesn't count for cancer cells".

[@youtubeistyrannical1787]

If we found cancer cells on mars the sanctity will come back

[@lealta1481]

I don't remember that bit. Remember which stand up it was from

[@Vampwatch1462]

@@lealta1481 the special was "George Carlin: Back in Town".

[@brandonkelley6500]

That is so funny. I was showing my friend a clip of that stand up earlier today !

[@proculusjulius7035]

Aah I see you're a man of culture. Cheers 🍻😁

[@thecrakp0t]

I've heard the term "proto-life" or "quasi-life" as good alternatives for these gray area situations

[@GuillermoCota11]

Yes! We need a new word for this. I suggest a word not related to "life" or "dead" since most likely this phenomenon called "life" is non-binary. What about "perpean"?

[@marcadams440]

I'd say viruses are of life or from life but aren't themselves living.

[@marcadams440]

@Klaus Sperger Seeds tardigrades and egg cells are all living because they either are or contain cells that are capable of sustaining themselves via metabolic processes. Then they can enter a period of stasis where the metabolism is temporarily paused but they are still capable of it. Viruses cannot carry out metabolic processes or reproduce themselves without a living cell. They are not in stasis because they can't carry out metabolism. You wouldn't describe a string of mRNA in a test tube without any ribosomes as living, but in stasis. I think of viruses as RNA that has left one organism and enters another. You couldn't have a planet where the only life is viral.

[@XWierdThingsHappenX]

This makes sense because viruses are not inanimate objects. But they aren't really alive either. At least not alive on how we humans perceive it.

[@bugjams]

@@GuillermoCota11 I agree with this. Life isn't binary. If all life is just a complex series of chemical reactions, then viruses are just less-complex chemical reactions. They are definitely still more complex than nothing - like a rock - but less complex than us animals. Life must be some sort of spectrum, rather than a yes-or-no check box.

[@heidipomeroy5605]

The only test question I remember from nursing school, some 35 years ago, was "Describe a virus". The answer was "DNA with a protein coat". The micro class I took was a crash coarse and it only touched on the behaviors and needs of microbes. I was fascinated that something so basic could have such a big impact on life and evolution. I've read everything I could over the years about these entities. I envisioned them as little machines that depend on cells as factories with all the machinery they need to replicate. Whether alive or not, they are vital to the existence of our planet. I never tire of learning more about viruses. Thanks for giving me something more to ponder.

[@cimachu]

I love this conversation because seeing all these magnitudes of size and complexity of organisms/viruses get so small that it is basically just a molecule just goes to show that at some level, all life is just some chemicals that happen to be good at reproducing and doing things.

[@joncoda365]

Are Viruses Alive? --- Um, define 'Alive".

[@eSKAone-]

Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes. Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other. God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it. For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️.

[@joncoda365]

@@eSKAone- are you the spirit science guy?

[@Carewolf]

Viruses are undead.

[@kiraPh1234k]

@@eSKAone- I very much disagree about the religion thing, most religions (and definitely all Abrahamic religions) exist purely as a result of ancient political struggle as it's easier to maintain control with a believe system than laws when the powers that control laws change more frequently than beliefs. That said, i do definitely agree the Universe itself is one living organism and we are all just constituent parts consisting of more constituent parts.

[@AlabasterJazz]

I like the idea of going one step further. Any emergent property of a collection of particles, or measurable interaction between particles is a form of "life." Including anything that forms a discernable pattern. This would cover abstract things such as the shape of galaxies and solar systems, patterns in waves, the shapes of rivers or leaves or crystals, the growth of cities, etc. As well as all chemical and electrical processes. And at this most basic level might it not be interesting in defining "life." But as the processes, and discernable patterns become more complex, traditional concepts of life become apparent.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

I think the fact that viruses express certain Darwinian qualities - self-preservation, the ability to evolve, the complexity of evading immune systems while continuing to propagate themselves - suggests they are in fact "living" things. The fact they require a kind of codependency to function doesn't render them any less "alive" imo.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

@@Pollencakes 1. A lot of these ideas didn't come from Darwin. In fact, everything Darwin did was already done by Alfred Russel Wallace. So had Darwin NEVER LIVED we would still have evolutionary biology. I say that to say this: Darwim being a eugenicist (like several others, including the racist Francis Watson), has no bearing on the ideas of evolutionary biology. The scientific method is what gives is the underlying rationale for natural selection, NOT Charles Darwin per se. 2. It's instructive to delineate between the two. I get the urge to cast everything aside that he did when you discover some of the abhorrent views he held, but one should never celebrate the man, one should celebrate the veracity of the ideas. (And, as I've already intimated, the principles of evolutionary biology would've became scientific orthodoxy with or without Darwin).

[@kakapomax]

Boo

[@placeholder3863]

@@Pollencakes so you dont believe in evolution?

[@mikubrot]

​@@PollencakesI think you're confusing the terms "darwinian" and "social darwinism" which is the actual eugenicist ideology

[@jackielinde7568]

Michael: "How do you kill something that's not alive?" Me: "Michael, do you know how many D&D tables have asked THAT VERY QUESTION? (And usually while under attack by said "not living thing".)

[@oucyan]

yeah, but D&D has magic. A golem is basically just a robot powered by magic.

[@cheaterman49]

@@oucyan Or in other words... life? :-D

[@oucyan]

@@cheaterman49 life isn't magic

[@cheaterman49]

@@oucyan I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then! It's technology so advanced we don't yet fully understand it. What does that make it according to Arthur C. Clarke? :-)

[@oucyan]

@@cheaterman49 I had a feeling you'd bring that up. but I'm making a distinction between actual magic and science so advanced it looks like magic to those who don't understand it.

[@upublic]

Life, uh, finds a way... to avoid definitions

[@austinsams6318]

We all know this video has something to do with Hank’s hot take on Instagram a few weeks ago

[@julem.2439]

He stated that he dislikes the biological definition of life and prefers the chemical one bc it's easier to apply if I remember correctly

[@austinsams6318]

@@julem.2439 Yeah that’s a good summary of what he said. However, I have a BS in molecular and cell biology and would also argue from this standpoint that viruses are “alive”.

[@ericeaton2386]

@@julem.2439 Soooo.... what's the chemical definition?

[@SandyRiverBlue]

Bacteriophages attaching to a bacterium 00:19. It's the oldest schlock in the science education book. I wish that these shows would give a wider example of the different types of viruses, so that the average American doesn't imagine the Apollo lunar module every time they catch a cold when in fact the viruses that look like the moon lander only attack bacteria.

[@StillOnTrack]

I still recognize bacteriophages from my HS bio class like 20 years ago. It stuck in my memory because I doodled an "Evil Mr. Bacteriophage" with an angry face on the head and labeled parts like "Collar (of Evil)" and "Sheath (of Evil)". Props to Mrs. Kasai for encouraging my doodles and Kudo bar consumption.

[@mschrisfrank2420]

I just accept that in science we need to define our terms, but our definitions are meant to describe the world we find-the world doesn’t exist to conform to our definitions.

[@spacejunky4380]

Chicken or the egg

[@iordanneDiogeneslucas]

@@spacejunky4380 well, eggs predate birds so defo predate chockens

[@ralphclark]

It’s actually quite a fine line between relying on existing definitions and theories to make sense of what we see, filter out noise and rule out nonsense hypotheses vs stretching them so far. When we do the latter it can impede progress for a while. But it’s probably for the best because if we place no confidence in the empirically supported frameworks we have established then we have nothing to guide us and no foundation to build on, while a theory that is being systematically contradicted by the evidence can’t last forever anyway. Knowing where it’s appropriate to begin questioning existing knowledge is what differentiates a professional scientist from a delusional amateur. But the question of what constitutes “life” is absolutely meaningless. It’s just a man-made categorisation and absolutely nothing depends on it.

[@OmateYayami]

Michael hair went from punk to a rock star to an Indian chieftain. I think his hairstyle needs an own compilation video.

[@ferg97]

I was wondering how they got John Romero to host the show.

[@ParleLeVu]

@@ferg97 Considering Michael's weight gain: Steven Seagal?

[@assjuice8223]

He got chunky too

[@iitzfizz]

And his voice started sounding more and more like the other dude.

[@oolivegreen]

He got hefty too 😩😲

[@dukelornek]

I love this discussion. I feel this line of reasoning needs to be applied to so many more things.

[@GuillermoCota11]

Socialism/Capitalism Good/Bad Man/Woman Male/Female Happy/Sad Dead/Alive Me/Everything else Some of the things society have this same problem on. The problem is just about words. For instance, people think there are only two sexes: male and female, but reality is that there's also intersex people. We just need a new word for organisms that are not alive or dead.

[@thefatbob3710]

@@GuillermoCota11 The thing is the vast majority of people are born male and female but I see we’re your coming from

[@ozymandias8523]

@@GuillermoCota11 intersex people can get themselves pregnant?

[@irisinthedarkworld]

This might be my favorite scishow so far! I love the commentary about how different lenses can affect studies

[@Oztralian]

This is such a gem of a video. Clear, concise and yet so much information. The question of "What is a living thing" has intrigued me for so long and this video makes me think a lot. Thank you

[@artistanthony1007]

I'm on the Viruses Are Alive train, been that way since high school.

[@MrAbkejoe]

Elaborate? Curious why you think that

[@eSKAone-]

Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes. Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other. God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it. For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️.

[@spicy9116]

Same but since middle school

[@MrSirlulzalot]

Go team Viruses Are Alive!

[@walterl322]

I'm on the post-modernist "you can't know universal truths about the world" train...

[@nickhomer6799]

This is definitely a head scratcher. It is the best of two things. Living and nonliving.

[@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647]

I agree.

[@saffroncoasts6950]

You ment worse right? Right??

[@merebrillante]

Like physicists have known for a century or so, when you get down to the quantum level, things get weird.

[@eSKAone-]

Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes. Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other. God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it. For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️.

[@unutilized]

I love the message about how asking the right questions is important. great examples too. thank you!

[@hellstorm300]

This video actually made me reconsider my thoughts about viruses. Previously I considered them as some complex non-living toxins. Now I fall into a conclusion that even though viruses themselves are not alive by any means, they can be considered as the minimalistic spores of an organism, which can only operate inside the other organism.

[@Tal_Thom]

“They’re not only big..they’re weird”: My life in review. Thank you for the bio title.

[@econno8172]

I always thought of them like little robots that clone themselves

[@KMMHealy]

One of my microbiology professors in college said that in general biology we learned that viruses aren’t alive: for the purposes of microbiology, they’re alive.

[@hahuded2122]

he makes sci show such a comforting and interesting channel, love all these hosts so much ❤

[@aldousa7769]

My Brother in Quebec told me to watch this video, and I think , this is a great video. Tks Bro

[@LuinTathren]

Considering all the complexities and gray areas of the boundaries between life and death, I think a new category that isn't "alive" and isn't "not alive" should be formed.

[@mallardofmodernia8092]

Schrödingertose?

[@GandalfTheTsaagan]

I like this Maybe the tree of life needs a root system that bridges matter as it comes together to form life

[@jasonreed7522]

I think viruses are best described as the vines growing on the tree of life. They evolve and are highly related to the organisms they infect at a genetic level. However, they are also in the grey area between fully alive and fully not alive (dumb chemistry).

[@Kormeister]

Zombies

[@Chance57]

@Dennis Feenstra that just seems so unnecessary. It would be like ditching the word "fish."

[@tommyodonovan3883]

I was fascinated when I discovered that a significant % of the human genome is comprised of viruses, for instance the human G and the Chimpanzee G has the same virus on the same exact DNA/RNA(?), Inserted there millions of yrs ago, thus proving that Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestry.

[@PTRMAN]

It is amazing to me how much Michael and Hank sound alike. I listened to but did not see the first four of five minutes of this video. I was surprised to see Michael and not Hank when I finally looked at the screen. Do you guys take the same "how to speak on KZbin classes"?

[@Starfals]

All this talk about Replicators comes at the best time ever. I'm JUST NOW watching Star Gate SG1 and they had to fight those in plenty of episodes. Heck, almost everything said in this video about them fits the movie version lol, except that they are robots.

[@gutspraygore]

Dr. Frankenstein: It's alive... It's ALIVE! Frankenstein's monster (sits up): I'm afraid you are mistaken, Doctor. Modern definitions of "life" exclude me from that paradigm. Dracula (observing from the rafters): Pff.. Tell me about it.

[@hazzar7784]

I remember learning about these in high school and thinking 'does no one else realize these are zombies?' according to the simple living vs non-living list they applied

[@PrincipalSkinner3190]

Personally I would consider zombies to be alive if they existed.

[@Ebola-Kun]

@@PrincipalSkinner3190 depends on what kind of zombies. Zombies from COD are not alive, they are essentially energized puppets. 28 days later- them dudes alive.

[@eniotanaka2229]

Zombies are living things

[@ozymandias8523]

@@Ebola-Kun those are infected(28 days later) not zombies

[@Ebola-Kun]

@@ozymandias8523 we do mix the two in media.

[@billylardner]

I feel like asking if a virus alive is similar to asking if a computer program is alive - it’s just code that can’t do anything on its own unless it has something to process it.

[@Jabberwockybird]

Yup, punch cards is my favorite metaphore to argue that viruses are not alive.

[@jeffhurckes190]

Sounds like those 2 researchers binge watched Stargate SG1 before writing that paper.

[@clayxros576]

But is it an inaccurate way to think of things?

[@pendelschabe]

Elle eau elle I’m binge watching that show right now

[@ozzynomicon2817]

I juat got donw watching episode 4 of season 7 haha. About onwil being replicated aka clonw. Is he alive even tho hes anclone? Why yes. Yes he is. Yes they are. Whether you like it or not.

[@clayxros576]

The "Replicators" grouping sounds like a better way to define things overall, erasing the question of "alive" and instead tackling if it's something that can actually do things on its own. It handily sidesteps the need to define "life", since a virus broken apart would then be considered as dead as a cadaver would be. It can't replicate anymore and its parts are being consumed, end of story. It's kinda elegant.

[@orbismworldbuilding8428]

Agreed

[@flametitan100]

It's useful, though I find the name replicator a bit tacky. That's just a nitpick though.

[@clayxros576]

@@flametitan100 I agree, it's definitely a name that comes from the long line of "Call it what it is" that plagues archives of history and science. They should get an artist to name the categories, if for no other reason than to make the name sound more poetic.

[@madj.7379]

Thank you for putting the ad at the end of the video! Informative, entertaining, and you kept it in layman's terms so i could understand almost all of it. Definitely fascinating stuff.

[@nicholasoneal1521]

I love that this channel includes sources

[@SciShow]

SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.

[@FIRE_STORMFOX-3692]

I like those independent RNA and DNA

[@Qo0_0]

Swag 😎

[@stevenchaloner162]

3:22 is that a typo on mitochondria

[@eSKAone-]

Every so called "scientist" that does not see that the universe is a living thing is just a mechanic. His mind can only process the obvious parts of life before his eyes. Everything is alive. Life does not end at the other side of a cell's membrane. A city is an organism too. There is no isolated system in the universe. It's systems within systems, overlapping each other. God is life itself. Everything in life is connected. We are part of a greater being. Religions are just different languages, they are an attempt to communicate this insight to other humans. With science getting more and more of the picture (macrocosm, microcosm), and people getting educated about it, it will be easier and easier for everyone to understand it. For that:☮️, you have to see this:☯️.

[@DunkelStern]

Like the new look

[@prosocial_lad]

The sentence "see viruses with new eyes" at 5:05 scared the crap out of me for a second. Viruses with eyes yikes

[@gameandappworld]

one of the best scishow episodes in a long time because of the way that it made me think. Thank you scishow people for the thought to ponder.

[@thegovernerful]

I bet we can track the development of this episode to Hanks Tik Tok

[@lyndsaybrown8471]

Did he go viral?

[@thegovernerful]

@@lyndsaybrown8471 when does he not

[@starshot5172]

I hate your generation to death

[@thegovernerful]

@@starshot5172 You might have to be more specific pal

[@NEprimo]

Who's hanks tiktok?

[@carissstewart3211]

What about prions which are just misfolded proteins with the ability to pass their misfolded shape onto normal proteins?

[@abbydabbs5519]

Depends where you draw the line. To include them you’d have to use a very radical definition tho. They’re still terrifying

[@sonorasgirl]

I was also thinking about the infectious cancer cells in Tasmanian Devils!

[@admiral_waffles533]

If prions are counted, then you could probably make autocatalytic reactions alive as well, since the reactants of such help make more.

[@carissstewart3211]

@@admiral_waffles533 Now I'm thinking about Grey goo. Would self-replicating machines be "alive"?

[@BlueFrenzy]

Life is the part of the universe who fights against its own entropy.

[@LimeyLassen]

Don't gemstones do that too?

[@johnhogan8327]

@@LimeyLassen gems are typically the result of accumulations under pressure

[@GuillermoCota11]

Crystals being alive sounds like a good hypothesis for me. I wish someone would put it to test. Maybe we would find something surprising.

[@moonstonepearl21]

Man for something that's so small and not even alive, it sure made a lot of chaos.

[@afergie76]

Predator vs prey. They always check and balance each other via evolution. Once one gains an upper had, the other adapts to counteract it. Then the other adapts to gain superiority, and the other adapts to gain control. “Cat/mouse”, “predator/prey’. It’s been going on since life started 100s of millions years ago.

[@faisalnadeem7621]

Are Viruses Alive? Coronavirus: "Hold my genome".

[@robertward34]

🍺

[@eier5472]

I like the most basic definition of "life" that was featured on PBS Space Time: 1.) It is able to store information. 2.) It is able to harness free (available) energy. 3.) It is able to reproduce faster than it is destroyed.

[@justsomeguy892]

So endangered animals are not alive?

[@LimeyLassen]

Do snowflakes and crystals store information? They have very low entropy.

[@eier5472]

@@justsomeguy892 Endangered animals would not be endangered if you don't account for environmental changes, predators or poaching. Edit: Or rather, you misunderstood what I meant with point 3.): The information, e.g. the genetic code, can replicate itself faster than it is disintegrated. For example in cell division

[@xelad3362]

I believe they're every bit as "alive" as a computer program and people just like to complicate things. They're just automata that execute instructions. They can "mutate" through encoding errors, damage, or straight up tampering.

[@Jabberwockybird]

Same

[@therightquestion2983]

As an ethologist my definition of life is If it communicates, it lives. That's a gross oversimplification but it is the foundation. I've had the argument that a STOP sign communicates....while being nonliving. A STOP sign states, a living organism communicates....with another living being. Communication can be vocal, physical, chemical etc. Most probably we have not discovered all the paths of communication as if yet. Viruses and bacteria can communicate across species. They are fascinating.

[@LEDewey_MD]

What an awesome episode of SciShow! The more we know, the more complex "life" becomes! May I highly recommend a book that ties together all of the ideas presented in this video? It is "The Vital Question", by Dr. Nick Lane, (a biochemist who leads the University College London Origins of Life Program), who has won prizes for other books as well. (Another great read by him, even though it was published several years ago, is "Oxygen: the Molecule that Made the World").

[@robotichumanity6019]

"Infectious genes, no proteins" at all sounds like a slogan, and you've got me sold on It; I'll take your entire stock

[@davidsontegga1972]

I recommend you to doctor Ehi who can cure you permanently from herpes with his herbal medicine. He save me from genital herpes virus 6months ago.

[@davidsontegga1972]

Dr WhatsApp number

[@syweb2]

@@davidsontegga1972 Bot?

[@ValeriePallaoro]

5:09 Michael hitting the mark with "We should note a few things ..." in such an authoritative manner is my new trope. More life things should have this disclaimer before we delve into them ... motherhood, politics, economicx, capitalism, religion, getting up in the morning on a monday to go to work ... *sigh* more of this please. Nice work Michael, very nicely done, indeed.

[@cimachu]

I think trying to classify them as alive or not alive isn’t very helpful, because they are related to us and at some point, we share a common ancestor. On top of that, the fact that they have genetic information and go through natural selection and evolution makes it totally plausible that they could eventually evolve to embody some of the traits that we consider as cornerstones of life.

[@neutrinoman4808]

One of my favorite episodes to date, thanks for the continued effort and appeal to a simple mind such as mine :)

[@TheDoctorAndALobster]

Great episode. Your epistemology of this complex question is astounding for that level of vulgarisation.

[@georganatoly6646]

one of my favorite 'debates' in biology, if you claim viruses are alive then you must accept that we are similarly 'less' alive, if you argue they aren't alive then you have to accept again that we're 'less' alive (in both cases that life is 'less' special) as the distinction either way between what is alive and what isn't is narrowed due to the degree of interaction and influence viruses and complex life have on one another

[@Burnsomatic]

I'm glad this interesting video did not have distracting, irritating background music. It was a pleasure to just hear a voice. Now if you would replace the time you deleted between sentences and phrases this would be even better to listen to.

[@ztoogemcducc6360]

I personally like the replicator idea the best. I've always thought if something could multiply and evolve it should be considered alive. The replicators idea simplifies that idea even further

[@myrmatta1]

Biology Major here. Can confirm. "Life" is complicated

[@GuillermoCota11]

Wouldn't it be better to accept that viruses are not alive or dead and just create a new word for it? I think we as humanity just got to a point in which we must realize what we call "life" is non-binary, and instead to be "alive" is a spectrum

[@gamenerdte1]

When you realize that MGSV continues to have more realism than initially thought

[@remainprofane7732]

But not as much as initially hoped.

[@DragonKingGaav]

Happy Birthday Hank!!!

[@BrightvisionWheels]

That’s for this. Very informative. Grammar note; the graphic at 4:16 depicts “it’s” and should be “its”.

[@CristobalAtria]

I love that you made a green screen to then put a green background behind.

[@MoxxoM]

0:28 What? LOOOOL. Funny style, but I like it.

[@God-ld6ll]

An a attempt to describe my thoughts about it. I find the distinction between alive and dead to be rather arbitrary, or everything is dead-alive or live-dead or it is like how Alan Watts would describe the relation between voluntary/involuntary, or to see the duality for what it is, or life implies death and death implies life like how back implies front and vice versa, a conspiracy you can think of metaphorically between the two.

[@clayxros576]

The difference between alive and dead is a much easier thing to define than life itself. If something is able to operate, it is alive. If it can no longer operate, it is dead. A virus that is damaged and cannot infect a cell is then as dead as a human whose heart stopped and begins to decay. This also serves to leave out objects that can operate similar to life, but require a certain stimulus to achieve that operation. A key in the ignition of a car, the pressure breaking the seal on a water heater, a robot which needs to be turned on in order to walk around. These things require a stimulous to operate, while a dog or a Viroid will simply do their thing regardless of what (non-damaging) stimulus is applied. Alive vs dead is easy. What is actually alive is the aspect in question.

[@God-ld6ll]

@@clayxros576 "The difference between alive and dead is a much easier thing to define than life itself. If something is able to operate, it is alive. If it can no longer operate, it is dead. A virus that is damaged and cannot infect a cell is then as dead as a human whose heart stopped and begins to decay. " "operate" makes me think of "function" or what I call a "multi-function". Difference between a fvm in my terms, f having a sense of any # of inputs and only one output while m is a sense of f with any # of outputs.

[@clayxros576]

@@God-ld6ll I want us to be able to communicate, and I have a hard time conceptualizing math. For the sake of us being able to understand each other, are you defining your idea of the word "operate" or explaining your perspective of life through a math operation? I can modify my word usage from your reply so we are on the same page. Also to be clear, I'm not implying incorrectness or anything like that. I just have no idea what that algebra means...

[@God-ld6ll]

@@clayxros576 despite the name, if you have trouble with math. this might help. kzbin.info/aero/PLZzHxk_TPOStgPtqRZ6KzmkUQBQ8TSWVX

[@castleanthrax1833]

How fortunate we are to have KZbin to address these complex scientific issues.

[@isatousarr7044]

Although viruses do exhibit certain characteristics that are often linked to living organisms, their inherent reliance on host cells for the process of reproduction, combined with their absence of a self-sustaining metabolic system, prompt a considerable number of scientists and scholars to classify them as non-living entities. This classification stems from the understanding that, without a host, viruses cannot replicate or harness energy, which are critical functions commonly associated with life.

[@samiamrg7]

“Are viruses alive?” Well yes, but actually no.

[@JamesDavy2009]

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it." -Mr. Spock

[@autonomouscollective2599]

Did Spock actually say that, or is that just a line from the song _Star Trekkin_ ?

[@JamesDavy2009]

@@autonomouscollective2599 That was the latter.

[@autonomouscollective2599]

@@JamesDavy2009 Good to know both you and I have such high cultural standards!

[@cpaulis]

Give a good definition to something and then think about it... then you start to think it is much more complex then expected. Here is the example of Life.

[@maxwelleckelbarger2734]

I’m a biologist and my unprofessional personal idea is that for something to be considered living it must be able to die. Death in this case in considered a state where the body still exists but is no longer able to perform any of its functions necessary in order to maintain life. There is likely a lot wrong with my definition but it hasn’t failed me yet.

[@Jabberwockybird]

I like that. A virus's body would have to be destroyed for it to be non-functional. I don't consider a virus to be alive.

[@thessop9439]

Short answer: No Long answer: May be perhaps if. - My bio teacher

[@Nikki0417]

Maybe it's because I'm watching this at 1:30am, but I like the concept of "replicators" because it's less complicated.

[@njmcmullen]

Oh no. Mitochondria typo as mitochondira in the 3:12ish mark. :)

[@FenrizNNN]

3:21

[@goodmaro]

When I've taught Biology (or biology), I've told my students there are no necessary or sufficient criteria for something to be alive, or for it to be a living thing. There are only tendencies in our thinking as to whether to classify things that way or not -- characteristics we look for, but neither require nor take as qualifiers. (I ask separately about whether something is alive or whether it's a living thing, because the latter discrimination has additional boundary-setting criteria.) It's especially fun to find things that are universally agreed on as living things, but fail one or more of the usually given criteria. And then as to the criteria themselves, there can be a lot of circularity; for instance, those who would exclude electronic or electromechanical devices from being living on the basis of not being made of protoplasm, and then define protoplasm as the stuff of living things. A good way to introduce this topic would be to imagine you're exploring an unfamiliar planet and asked to report on whether things you find there are living or not.

[@judgeomega]

the writing was really excellent in this episode. seriously deep insights

[@foosreviewfood3697]

Michael and Hank are the top two host's of SS, nothing but respect to all the other host's too but these two just teach different.

[@kirknay]

Great job. Now the internet is on fire.

[@ourladyofdarkness2622]

One could argue that fire itself is alive using some of the criteria of life. It does consumes and reproduce

[@kirknay]

@@ourladyofdarkness2622 frack, now we are in deep... What's next? Societies are alive?

[@martinzarzarmusic5338]

There are no individual living things. Just an ecosystem. End of problem.

[@goodmaro]

The question is more about how we think than about the subjects of our thinking. How do we classify things, and do our classifications help organize our thinking more compactly, or obscure it? I still haven't watched the video, but if it doesn't at least touch on that, it misses the point.

[@QuaraeCanady]

A pleasure to be here, so early

[@MrJC1]

It is difficult i must admit. Somewhere inbetween the two maybe. I think they are "somewhat alive" at the very least. Haha. But i am not a specialist in such areas. I am a computer scientist who loves microbiology as a side endeavour.

[@Carewolf]

@Fidel Mince But it doesn't. A virus can't replicate itself, it infects living cells to do that.

[@robsmors]

It's kinda scary how these bacteriophages resemble autonomous, alien nanomachines.

[@Tru7hiness]

my favourite empirical definition of life is: "That property which a being would lose as a result of falling out of a cold and mysterious cave thirteen miles above ground level."

[@twocvbloke]

"Life forms, you tiny little life forms, you precious little life forms, where are you? **beepyboopboopboopboop, beepyboop!** " :P

[@fluffysheap]

I just love scanning for life forms!

[@tammymccaslin4787]

I would be HAPPY to, Sir!

[@ShawnHCorey]

Categories are created by people, not nature.

[@AugustusBohn0]

this is the real important takeaway. categories are for humans to navigate the world well enough. viruses do what they do and pluto does what it does regardless of what labels humans slap on them

[@R2Bl3nd]

These kinds of questions, that ask about what even defines life itself, gets at the core of how life could have gotten started in the first place, and what the earliest life looked like. What separated the very earliest proto life forms from regular chemicals we see all around us? Once we figure that out it might finally help us track down exactly when and where life on Earth began.

[@agustinfranco0]

What we always need to remember is that the universe doesnt care what we think, the universe doesnt HAVE to make sense to us, it doesnt HAVE to fit definitions. its just is. WE are the ones obssesed with classifications. and that means that, sometimes, it will be absolutely impossible to make a good classification. without having to rely to stuff like "everything with a genetic material is alive"

[@housseinzhu2405]

Life is just a specific organisation of matter that we deem fit for our understanding of all things

[@phoebebaker1575]

One of the most interesting and engaging videos I’ve seen in a long time. I love thinking about questions in a different way!

[@robertgotschall1246]

I have a hard time picturing viruses as not living. It's just that viruses have a really odd metabolism and method of reproduction.

[@Sammie_Sorrelly]

10:27 Michael: After all, you can only fit so many instruments on a probe The NASA scientist who's also in a ska band: Watch me

[@tsugaru_solos]

This joke is going to be massively underappreciated. 😂

[@ItsStillMeLC]

What if they're alive in viral terms? Kind of like how quantum physics has their own category to physics, with their own meanings for the same words.