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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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 UA-cam 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.
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.
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"?
@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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."
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?
@@BirdieParTee - 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."
@@GuillermoCota11bear in the mind that we are multicellular colonies that will not uniformly die all at the same time nor get the memo the heart died out which is pretty much what true death is for humans and just continue until they do run out I think that question is like asking when is it truly dusk despite being a specific hour and the sun still has not fully covered would it not be a few minutes later ? Is kind of redundant
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.
@@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!!
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- 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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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- 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.
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:☯️.
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.
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:☯️.
@@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”.
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.
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 UA-cam classes"?
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").
A Chem prof of mine once reminded me that chemistry doesn't stop at the electron and proton size because anything we haven't seen reacting at smaller component sizes because smaller cannot be understood or defined. She went on to ask what would living things look like smaller than 1/2 a micron. Perhaps we could call viruses previvient or paravivient (some stage near but before what we could definitively say is living)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 depends on what kind of zombies. Zombies from COD are not alive, they are essentially energized puppets. 28 days later- them dudes alive.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Also it’s relatively simple to create a sort of artificial virus or pseudovirus, so that would mean that the creation of artificial life is a routine part of some experiments under those living virus definitions
Transfolk are alive, even though they cannot replicate by conventional means. Their numbers are still growing while those of breeders are starting to shrink. Maybe we are coming to a tipping point that will keep us from the horror of reaching the edges of our petri dish.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@ThePragmaticCommando 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...
@@sebastienh1100 I mean yeah, he got big, but I don't have the slightest idea about him and what he's going through so I can only express concern. Cant judge...
@@SkatinatorSS - but you did call him fat. Only with a lot of words and indirect hints. What is the difference between being rude, being polite, or hypocritical? ;)
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.
@@Void.Critt3r 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).
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
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
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.
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 UA-cam 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'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.
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'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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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 🍻😁
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.
@@BirdieParTee - 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."
@@GuillermoCota11bear in the mind that we are multicellular colonies that will not uniformly die all at the same time nor get the memo the heart died out which is pretty much what true death is for humans and just continue until they do run out
I think that question is like asking when is it truly dusk despite being a specific hour and the sun still has not fully covered would it not be a few minutes later ? Is kind of redundant
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.
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!!
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?
"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
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
This might be my favorite scishow so far! I love the commentary about how different lenses can affect studies
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
Life, uh, finds a way... to avoid definitions
I love the message about how asking the right questions is important. great examples too. thank you!
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?
he makes sci show such a comforting and interesting channel, love all these hosts so much ❤
Best content I've seen on that subject. Very interesting, as always, SciShow.
7:08-7:24
"Megatron has fallen! I, Starscream, now lead the Replicons!"
... Yes...
It's life Jim, but not as we know it.-Dr. Bones McCoy.
🤣👍
Are you out of your VULKAN MIND?
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.
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.
But that is what pretty much all bacteriophages look like; they’re just one kind of virus
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 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.
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.
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
“Biological entities” is the best term I’ve heard so far for viruses
This was a very well written episode! One of my favourites so far
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 😩😲
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.
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:☯️.
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.
My Brother in Quebec told me to watch this video, and I think , this is a great video.
Tks Bro
i’m so jazzed about your hair, it’s so luxurious i’ve always wanted to see more of it. i’m a little envious because i’m balding, lol.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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
I always thought of them like little robots that clone themselves
Great episode. Your epistemology of this complex question is astounding for that level of vulgarisation.
As soon as he said Mitochondria I immediately thought of "Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell"
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 UA-cam classes"?
Viruses: Hello
Life: What the hell are you!?!?
"what the hell even is that?"
Virus: UNLIFE!
One of my favorite episodes to date, thanks for the continued effort and appeal to a simple mind such as mine :)
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").
A Chem prof of mine once reminded me that chemistry doesn't stop at the electron and proton size because anything we haven't seen reacting at smaller component sizes because smaller cannot be understood or defined. She went on to ask what would living things look like smaller than 1/2 a micron. Perhaps we could call viruses previvient or paravivient (some stage near but before what we could definitively say is living)
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.
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.
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.
0:28 What? LOOOOL. Funny style, but I like it.
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
I love that this channel includes sources
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.
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.
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."
Perfect episode thanks from EGYPT
Michael Aranda has always been my favorite science presenting nerd on youtube!
Dude is the most Power Ranger looking person I have ever seen in this video, and I love it.
lol. Go! go! Power Ranger!
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"?
This was the best presentation about viruses ,so far.
the writing was really excellent in this episode. seriously deep insights
Life is the part of the universe who fights against its own entropy.
Don't gemstones do that too?
@@LimeyLassen gems are typically the result of accumulations under pressure
Crystals being alive sounds like a good hypothesis for me. I wish someone would put it to test. Maybe we would find something surprising.
Happy Birthday Hank!!!
Life to viruses: there is nothing going on between us.
Also life: It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Great video, SciShow! Love learning about cells.
One of the most interesting and engaging videos I’ve seen in a long time. I love thinking about questions in a different way!
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?
Also it’s relatively simple to create a sort of artificial virus or pseudovirus, so that would mean that the creation of artificial life is a routine part of some experiments under those living virus definitions
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?
Well done, Sir.
Very listenable 🤘🏻🇺🇲
Best Scishow episode in a while. Thank you guys!!
Scientist: Maybe life is defined by replication.
Mule: I guess I'll just *not* die.
Liger: *eats mule*
Transfolk are alive, even though they cannot replicate by conventional means. Their numbers are still growing while those of breeders are starting to shrink. Maybe we are coming to a tipping point that will keep us from the horror of reaching the edges of our petri dish.
@@luddity what?
Their cells still replicate.
@@Randomd0g i think she meant transsexual
@@Devin_Stromgren True.
"Infectious genes, no proteins" at all sounds like a slogan, and you've got me sold on It; I'll take your entire stock
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.
Dr WhatsApp number
@@davidsontegga1972 Bot?
Are Viruses Alive?
Coronavirus: "Hold my genome".
🍺
“They’re not only big..they’re weird”: My life in review. Thank you for the bio title.
Thank you for this video
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@ThePragmaticCommando
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...
@@clayxros576 despite the name, if you have trouble with math. this might help. ua-cam.com/play/PLZzHxk_TPOStgPtqRZ6KzmkUQBQ8TSWVX.html
A pleasure to be here, so early
This was a particularly good episode!
That’s for this. Very informative. Grammar note; the graphic at 4:16 depicts “it’s” and should be “its”.
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.
Hear that, mom?
I may not have given you a grandkid and maybe I won't but I AM a replicator, okay?! You're not taking that away from me!
Michael, i know you might have gone for the Steven Segal look, but at the same time I hope you are keeping healthy.
He is fat, which is not healthy ;)
@@sebastienh1100 I mean yeah, he got big, but I don't have the slightest idea about him and what he's going through so I can only express concern. Cant judge...
@@SkatinatorSS - i don’t judge either. He is fat, which is a fact, not a moral judgment ;)
@@sebastienh1100 i know I know. I just don't wanna call him fat. I like Michael and I care about his feelings 😁
@@SkatinatorSS - but you did call him fat. Only with a lot of words and indirect hints. What is the difference between being rude, being polite, or hypocritical? ;)
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.
@@Void.Critt3r 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
@@Void.Critt3r so you dont believe in evolution?
@@Void.Critt3rI think you're confusing the terms "darwinian" and "social darwinism" which is the actual eugenicist ideology
this host was my crush way back early scishow episodes. I am surprised how big he became. lols