Are Infectious Viruses Actually Alive?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 май 2021
- 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/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
SciShow has a spinoff podcast! It's called SciShow Tangents. Check it out at www.scishowtangents.org
----------
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/10.1080/0739110110105...
doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016....
doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-98...
doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2010.07...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33519...
doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix349
doi.org/10.1515/bmc-2020-0001
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19270...
doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016....
doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016....
doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016....
doi.org/10.1038/340467a0
doi.org/10.2307/1313569
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30300...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26475...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12663...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16741...
doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016....
doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902...
doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01107-07
Image Source
www.istockphoto.com/photo/big...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
www.istockphoto.com/photo/3d-...
www.istockphoto.com/photo/vir...
www.istockphoto.com/photo/vir...
www.istockphoto.com/photo/dia...
www.istockphoto.com/photo/202...
As someone kindly pointed out, "Mitochondria" is spelled incorrectly at 3:21!
what not gonna reupload for that too? lol
Can you make a video about transferable cancers, which can infect other individuals of the same species, and whether they are their own species?
Damn it American school system, you had one job!
@Liam Johnson Tensorflow projects have life 😳
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
How to make biologists fight each other
Step 1: Ask wether a virus is alive or not
Please only do so in a safe room with no sharp edges or blunt objects.
@@tarmaque help, one broke a petri dish in half and stabbed me.
@@tarmaque or dangerous chemicals or machines
Yipppp
And if they say they are alive, ask them about prions.
For one of my biology classes during college, I did my final presentation about the connection between wildfires and the Yellowstone ecosystem. Since my professor was cool, I started off by doing a 'joke intro' about how FIRE is alive because it meets the basic requirements of life since it was capable of 'eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli'. My professor told me afterward that he was disappointed that it was only a joke because I made such a good argument.
Fire is alive. Fight me!
@@WanderingYankee If I fight fire with fire, does that make me a Pokemon trainer?
@@WanderingYankee Okay. **throws dirt onto fire** There.
Fire is incorporeal life, its also a plasma and highly electrically conductive.
The flame itself technically.
All elements are alive in their own way... Life doesn't need to fit our argument or definition of it. It just exists
I like the part where it says that viruses can be considered alive once they've infected a cell. It's a bit like a rite of passage, like a graduation: "I'm proud of you, son, you've infected a cell. I now pronounce you alive".
What does that make virophages?
@@yakarotsennin3115
Delivery systems.
@@yakarotsennin3115
Delivery systems.
@@yakarotsennin3115 Extremists
I disagree. Viruses are just floating information. If that's the case then any wayward mutation of a gene that is transcribed in the ribosomes (3D printers of the cell) are alive as well. When all they are are typos of the genetic code or typos on pages in books in the library (chromosome). Viruses are just floating paper plane pages of a book looking for a 3D printer to make more pages of the same page.
"How can a non-living thing evolve?"
Future robot overlords have entered chat.
XD
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
@@otaviocamanho1135 They can evolve without self awareness (example: The algorythm)
@@mauigonz I think you mean just awareness of some kind and not self awareness.
@@otaviocamanho1135 they can be considered a person but not alive in terms of biology. But the definitions could change. Who knows.
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
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.
@whesley hynes love em or hate em this man's speaking.... er..
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.
@@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.
@whesley hynes you should wipe the drool off your chin before it drips on your shirt and your mother has to clean it
I've had roommates who don't meet the requirements to be classified as a living creature.
Ive dated girls that dont meet the criteria to be considered alive. At least not in bed.
@@mightywhite360 should we call the police?
Try cleaning
@@mightywhite360 body pillows?
@@stixinst5791 I mean, you can if you like, but I dont see how theyre gonna help my poor taste in women.
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 RUclips 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.
I just realised I haven't watch Scishow for about 5 or 6 years and Michael has gotten what the youth here in the UK used to call hench. This is what happens when your nearly 40 and you've been watching the Green family extended universe for over a decade. Keep up the good work Michael, when I started Hank had a moustache, you're doing a very well.
I really like the idea of the "replicons and replicators". Seems to simplify things pretty well.
Unless you've watched Stargate SG-! ;-)
Yep. To me, life is something which undergoes adaptive evolution. That seems like the most important/useful difference.
Though those terms are still dependent on the environment. E coli on the moon isn't alive or a replicator.
BTW: The replicons and replicator idea is actually pretty old. A lot of these ideas were being discussed about 100 years ago if not more.
Replicons and autocators would be better
Ok but then when machines build other machines, do those count as replicators?
@@blksmagma yes. Assuming there is heritable variation and selection
I taught my 6th graders about viruses and we voted on whether or not they are alive. They all voted yes. So, its settled, right?
Yeah, well, they probably think that Pluto is a planet
❤️
@whesley hynes You clearly learned the technique. I felt anguish the whole time I was reading this.
@@rbb9753 nah
@whesley hynes who hurt you
The question itself is flawed. Everything including life, is a gradient of emergent complexity.
If you want to go that far might as well go all the way. We are all just clumps of atoms.
@@heinzerbrew Sure... but I guess ultimately my observation is a question - why does stuff work together at all?
Viruses, mitochondria, neurons, cells of all kinds, have literally zero intelligence or sense of the world around them, but each individual is built of carefully crafted components which in turn work together at a scale not too far removed from "just a bunch of atoms" to make another generation or fulfil often very specific mechanical, chemical, electrical (or a mix thereof) functions.
To be clear, I am absolutely not invoking a god of any kind or proposing any kind of supernatural. I'm just fascinated by the question.
I don't know how anyone can look at something like a kinesin protein walking around (or other protein 'motors') and think "yup... nothing to see here, just clumps of self-assembled molecules walking around with ATP on a microtubule that's assembled itself just to be a road."
@@kyneticist but that is what it is just a clump of atoms.That is all we are also. Somehow though, our brains create a false reality to represent the real world around us. we think stuff is more than just atoms, but it isn't. There is no meaning to anything. If we stop existing there is nothing that cares, because caring is all in our head.
@@kyneticist think of it like computing kinda I guess?
Emergent complexity yes, but as something grows more complex it gains capacity to grow more complexly and faster than before. Leading to an almost exponential rise of complexity. Like 8 bits lets you store values from 0-127, but 16 bits let's you store values between 0-32767.
I think this then takes on another dimension once you get to awareness/conciousness. So instead of just doing 8+8 bits for 16 bits it'd be like (8+8)^2 or smth idk
@@kyneticist One thing that needs to be toned down/tamed in your observation is the idea that things are "carefully crafted components", especially when it comes to biological systems. Sure, it might appear that way at first, but really it's all an inefficient mess. Speaking of the natural world, nothing comes into existence on it's own, nor does it have any real design to it: for whatever reason, life began and perpetuated itself, and changes to life that supported this perpetuation stayed, regardless of their efficiency. In other words... life doesn't move or evolve "towards" anything (i.e. to a specific outcome), it moves away from selection pressure (whichever outcome works best). While this might seem kind of trivial, it's actually quite an important distinction.
There's nothing really supernatural about it. If you think deeply on it, you'll come to realize that life in our universe is an probabilistic inevitability. In other words, with how vast and expansive the universe is, if its mechanisms have any capacity to support life, it's assured to happen at least somewhere, right? At the same time though, this is kind of significant: life emerging was inevitable. It wasn't planned, nor was it a mistake, it just happened.
On your last point about kinesin: you have to be careful about your own bias coming from your narrative as a human. Kinesin do not "walk" along "roads": kinesin are directed towards a destination as a consequence of chemistry. That's not to say that the analogy is wrong, it's just that we need to be careful to not lose sight of what's really happening in favor of an analogy that makes us feel good.
However, as someone who has studied Biochemistry, I definitely understand the fascination when it comes to motor-like proteins (my favorite being ATP Synthase) or other proteins such as hemoglobin (really, study this one: it's incredible how it works).
Anyways, basically I'm just saying that as humans, we desperately desire to find meaning. It's kind of what drives all of philosophy, including the sciences, isn't it? We think there must be some sort of information out there that can give us that little push we need to figure everything out, but we never find it. It's really a curse; the pursuit is the definition of insanity.
One thing I can offer you, and this may be a result of my bias as a follower of Buddhism: there's a discussion in one of the sutras about the reality and unreality of concepts, and the response is that such things are "like a raft, used to cross a river", and that once we cross that river, the raft is no longer needed. While it's certainly beneficial to study the sciences and try to answer difficult questions, at some point the pursuit loses its value to us. At that point, it might be best for us to stop questioning the outside and start questioning the inside. Just something to think about.
Edit: Why I responded to you in the first place is because your question reminded me of the concepts of dependent origination and sunyata. Dependent origination being that all things are connected and depend upon one another (emerging complexity) and sunyata, the sanskrit word for nothingness (or a lack of suchness) which implies impermanence and the idea that nothing has its own intrinsic existence (emerging complexity, again).
Good luck!!
“Biological entities” is the best term I’ve heard so far for viruses
2:38 Think you guys forgot to mention the fact that those super large viruses also get preyed on by much smaller viruses, another interesting thing about them.
Virusception.
And there are also super tiny bacteria that fest on medium to large-sized viruses... and other bacteria that live as parasites on much larger bacteria... life is weird in the end
@@haroldbn6816 Virophages!
Whaaaaat
Cannibalism~🧟♂️
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.
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.
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."
LoL, I would have stepped in saying: excuse you, hold my Archea.
Ah yes, the two kingdoms of life. Animal and plant.
@@haroldbn6816 no you wouldn’t have, we all know you’re far too socially inept to have stepped into a stranger’s conversation.
@@northwestpassage6234 he did pretty good in this one🤓
@@iliketurtles6777 wow, you’re right the anonymous internet interactions are just like real life!
Biologist 1: Viruses are alive.
Biologist 2: No they are not alive!
Schrödinger: Why not both?
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:☯️.
@@Master_Therion Ignore Him He has been Spamming On every comment He could Find to reply to
been while since i saw you
@@eSKAone- id say, nothing is alive, everything is just machines that function on chemistry that in turns functions because of physics, and we are just machines that think
@@pridefulobserver3807 same here, I see them as functions that fools itself
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.
This might be my favorite scishow so far! I love the commentary about how different lenses can affect studies
It's like what George Carlin said. "You know the Sanctity of Life doesn't count for cancer cells".
If we found cancer cells on mars the sanctity will come back
I don't remember that bit. Remember which stand up it was from
@@lealta1481 the special was "George Carlin: Back in Town".
That is so funny. I was showing my friend a clip of that stand up earlier today !
Aah I see you're a man of culture. Cheers 🍻😁
I've heard the term "proto-life" or "quasi-life" as good alternatives for these gray area situations
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"?
I'd say viruses are of life or from life but aren't themselves living.
@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.
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.
@@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.
Best content I've seen on that subject. Very interesting, as always, SciShow.
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.
This discussion introduces even more awkwardness: at what point is a corpse no longer alive? Many metabolic processes continue after an organism dies, and cells will commonly continue to function until they run out of fuel or accumulate too much waste.
It's just akward if we hold on to the idea that there's s point in which life becomes dead. It's like trying to tell when hot becomes cold. How do you draw that line to separate them? When does hot becomes cold? When does life becomes death?
A corpse can't reproduce. If you don't meet all of the various criteria at the same time, you aren't alive.
@@aaronsmith927 - As I noted, individual cells will frequently continue to function until they run out of energy or drown in their own waste. If they have enough energy, they can undergo mitosis even if the overall organism they are a part of is "dead."
I don't think that the SG1 team would be so impressed with you talking so kindly about replicators
Aren’t we all replicators maaaaaaan?
Hah! Nice. I see an SG1 reference, I hit like.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Well where else am I supposed to get my Earl Grey from?
One of the most interesting and engaging videos I’ve seen in a long time. I love thinking about questions in a different way!
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
Michael does a fantastic job hosting these episodes. I've enjoyed each one that I've seen.
I completely didn't recognize him at first. Did he gain a ton of weight or am I tripping?
@@Che8t huh, doesn't really seem relevant.
@@Che8t mans bulked up
he does but hank's still the funniest. i miss hank.
@@regular-joe It's not at all relevant to his performance as a host, but nonetheless it's quite common for audiences to become attached to people they see and hear a lot. So a sudden change in appearance is always gonna spark interest.
Life, uh, finds a way... to avoid definitions
Great video, SciShow! Love learning about cells.
This was a very well written episode! One of my favourites so far
7:08-7:24
"Megatron has fallen! I, Starscream, now lead the Replicons!"
... Yes...
"Are viruses alive?"
Coronavirus: And I took that personally
*mutates*
@@branm5459 like HELL
It's weak
„Are viruses alive?”
SARS-CoV-2: you’re not gonna be
@@1Peasant so are toddlers
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.
he makes sci show such a comforting and interesting channel, love all these hosts so much ❤
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.-Dr. Bones McCoy.
🤣👍
Are you out of your VULKAN MIND?
Michael hair went from punk to a rock star to an Indian chieftain. I think his hairstyle needs an own compilation video.
I was wondering how they got John Romero to host the show.
@@ferg97 Considering Michael's weight gain: Steven Seagal?
He got chunky too
And his voice started sounding more and more like the other dude.
He got hefty too 😩😲
Always interesting, thank you.
Thank you for this video
Viruses: Hello
Life: What the hell are you!?!?
"what the hell even is that?"
Virus: UNLIFE!
We all know this video has something to do with Hank’s hot take on Instagram a few weeks ago
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
@@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”.
@@julem.2439 Soooo.... what's the chemical definition?
Best Scishow episode in a while. Thank you guys!!
the writing was really excellent in this episode. seriously deep insights
Are Viruses Alive?
--- Um, define 'Alive".
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:☯️.
@@eSKAone- are you the spirit science guy?
Viruses are undead.
@@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.
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.
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.
Chicken or the egg
@@spacejunky4380 well, eggs predate birds so defo predate chockens
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.
Loved it. Really got me thinking
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.
I'm on the Viruses Are Alive train, been that way since high school.
Elaborate? Curious why you think that
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:☯️.
Same but since middle school
Go team Viruses Are Alive!
I'm on the post-modernist "you can't know universal truths about the world" train...
I always thought of them like little robots that clone themselves
My Brother in Quebec told me to watch this video, and I think , this is a great video.
Tks Bro
This was a particularly good episode!
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".)
yeah, but D&D has magic. A golem is basically just a robot powered by magic.
@@oucyan Or in other words... life? :-D
@@cheaterman49 life isn't magic
@@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? :-)
@@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.
This is definitely a head scratcher. It is the best of two things. Living and nonliving.
I agree.
You ment worse right?
Right??
Like physicists have known for a century or so, when you get down to the quantum level, things get weird.
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:☯️.
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.
@@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).
Boo
@@Pollencakes so you dont believe in evolution?
@@PollencakesI think you're confusing the terms "darwinian" and "social darwinism" which is the actual eugenicist ideology
Michael Aranda has always been my favorite science presenting nerd on youtube!
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.
I love the message about how asking the right questions is important. great examples too. thank you!
Very interesting - thanks!
Well done, Sir.
Very listenable 🤘🏻🇺🇲
I love this discussion. I feel this line of reasoning needs to be applied to so many more things.
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.
@@GuillermoCota11 The thing is the vast majority of people are born male and female but I see we’re your coming from
@@GuillermoCota11 intersex people can get themselves pregnant?
Honestly, I think they should change the meaning to "anything that displays behavior to manipulate it's environment, and requires external upkeep (i.e. nutrients to maintain cohesion).
* and reproduces.
But... is fire alive? It manipulates its environment, needs resources to sustain itself, and reproduces
So then computer programs are alive? They try to manipulate their environment, by changing the current state of the machine, and they require electricity as external upkeep.
I think one definition says something along those lines.
I think the main reason they say that shouldn't be the definition is because it ONLY moves when it touches a viable host. Otherwise, it just floats around to save energy
Edit: Basically, It cant self sustain or reproduce without something considered living or a larger virus
@@fi4re An argument could be made under this definition. I'm not apposed to it. But I could also argue that it's reaction has to be caused by an outside source and it also does it show behavior. It destroys not builds either.
@@Fluugan I don't see why not. It doesn't say anything about physical. I mean the potential for true intelligence is there. Why not life?
I love that this channel includes sources
“They’re not only big..they’re weird”: My life in review. Thank you for the bio title.
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.
Schrödingertose?
I like this
Maybe the tree of life needs a root system that bridges matter as it comes together to form life
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).
Zombies
@Dennis Feenstra that just seems so unnecessary. It would be like ditching the word "fish."
Sounds like those 2 researchers binge watched Stargate SG1 before writing that paper.
But is it an inaccurate way to think of things?
Elle eau elle I’m binge watching that show right now
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.
Very well explained ! 👍
Perfect episode thanks from EGYPT
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
Personally I would consider zombies to be alive if they existed.
@@PrincipalSkinner3190 depends on what kind of zombies. Zombies from COD are not alive, they are essentially energized puppets. 28 days later- them dudes alive.
Zombies are living things
@@Ebola-Kun those are infected(28 days later) not zombies
@@ozymandias8523 we do mix the two in media.
Yoo i had this conversation with a friend about whether a virus is alive or not..
.. an hour later it turns to a philosophical debate about what it means to be alive, and we had so much fun during the conversation it became and inside joke. Whenever virus or disease are mentioned one of us would spark the conversation again
Wow, what a brilliant video!
This explains everything
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.
SciShow is supported by Brilliant.org. Go to Brilliant.org/SciShow to get 20% off of an annual Premium subscription.
I like those independent RNA and DNA
Swag 😎
3:22 is that a typo on mitochondria
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:☯️.
Like the new look
I think this is one of the best episodes of scishow
You’re pimpin’ good at this topic
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.
I bet we can track the development of this episode to Hanks Tik Tok
Did he go viral?
@@lyndsaybrown8471 when does he not
I hate your generation to death
@@starshot5172 You might have to be more specific pal
Who's hanks tiktok?
This video has given me a great idea and I think I’m moving “viruses” to after my “genetics” lessons for Q2 9th grade bio. This would be a great in class debate activity to close out the 2nd quarter. It would totally sum up both quarters and plant the seeds for Q3 which begins with evolution. How do we get permission to use this?
You don't need permission to show it to your class
This was the best presentation about viruses ,so far.
I will always click fast on a Michael Aranda episode.
He definitely grew on me. Now his voice soothes my soul while educating it.
@@greasypigboy4959 He definitely grew, thats for sure.
He didn't need to grow on me. I liked him from the beginning.
@@whyjnot420 Most of us have this past year. I'm certainly not judging.
@@whyjnot420 he's bulking and in a year he'll be a herculean specimen
What about prions which are just misfolded proteins with the ability to pass their misfolded shape onto normal proteins?
Depends where you draw the line. To include them you’d have to use a very radical definition tho. They’re still terrifying
I was also thinking about the infectious cancer cells in Tasmanian Devils!
If prions are counted, then you could probably make autocatalytic reactions alive as well, since the reactants of such help make more.
@@admiral_waffles533 Now I'm thinking about Grey goo. Would self-replicating machines be "alive"?
Thank you
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 RUclips classes"?
One of my favorite episodes to date, thanks for the continued effort and appeal to a simple mind such as mine :)
Back when I was in high school everything was very distinctively something or not, the more I learn the more I realize most things come on a spectrum or are hardly defined boxes at all. Very neat!
No, not very neat.
Sounds like you went to a terrible high school and/or had some bad teachers.
@@kapwns I mean I grew up in the south sooooooooo and yes for some reason all of my high school science teachers were more like power tripping bullies than teachers 🙄
The reason for that is there are too many components and combinations for there to easily be hard boxes, or there are variations of things that are "the same". The chevron shape is a quadrilateral just like a square or rectangle for instance, but isn't a square.
If alien life turns out to use a different nucliec acid, is it life? The answer is yes but it's different life, not the same life.
@@meneither3834 why not?
thank - you .
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.
Great episode. Your epistemology of this complex question is astounding for that level of vulgarisation.
"They're not only big...they're weird!"
That's what she said
This is actually how cats feel about humans.
@@DamnDemi You, maybe.
I feel personally attacked.
That’s for this. Very informative. Grammar note; the graphic at 4:16 depicts “it’s” and should be “its”.
In the immortal and beautifully voiced words of Dean Domino: "'Alive's' a tricky word... not sure it applies to them..."
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.
Agreed
It's useful, though I find the name replicator a bit tacky. That's just a nitpick though.
@@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.
Happy Birthday Hank!!!
Amazing video
I love SciShow. I just wanted say that. Thanks.
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.
So endangered animals are not alive?
Do snowflakes and crystals store information? They have very low entropy.
@@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
Life to viruses: there is nothing going on between us.
Also life: It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
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.
I learned way more in this than I wanted to