3 ms·

The fact that it's happening and we're still alive.

by aquadrop 9y ago

amelius 9y ago
This may change when the viruses are made to deliver engineered payloads.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  What happens if there's a bug in the gene code/splicing, and a self-replicating virus causes a worse problem that it was intended to solve? (this happens all the time in pharmaceuticals already) Or because a virus was manipulated, it can then mutates in a way that in it's natural state, would never mutate? (another unforeseeable result)
  - ncmncm 9y ago
    Viruses always mutate, and they are far more clever about it than any puny human. But fewer than one in a billion viral species has the slightest interest in infecting you.
RobertRoberts 9y ago
Doesn't this strongly imply that we are actually quite immune to virus naturally, and only that a depressed immune system is what allows viruses to wreak havoc?
- sfink 9y ago
  You seem to think of viruses as all the same? The headline (and text before the paywall) does not say or imply that these are human-infectious viruses. They're just viruses. As in, a basic form of life, basic enough that it's highly questionable whether it makes sense to call them living. They're everywhere. As are bacteria, and bugs (rapidly descending in orders of magnitude in that "everywhere"!) But it's certainly news to me that trillions are falling from the sky; I would have guessed that uv radiation would disrupt ("kill"?) them.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    >As in, a basic form of life,... From the article: >Do viruses even fit the definition of something alive? You said: >"...does not say or imply that these are human-infectious viruses." Article said: >"Viruses and their prey..." I think it's safe to assume this article's intent is to share information that is not obviously known to everyone, that's it's supposed to be "news" (ie, it's from the New York Times). So let's not pretend that this article is a rehash of common knowledge about the value/state of viruses.

The fact that it's happening and we're still alive.

amelius 9y ago

This may change when the viruses are made to deliver engineered payloads.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
What happens if there's a bug in the gene code/splicing, and a self-replicating virus causes a worse problem that it was intended to solve? (this happens all the time in pharmaceuticals already) Or because a virus was manipulated, it can then mutates in a way that in it's natural state, would never mutate? (another unforeseeable result)
- ncmncm 9y ago
  Viruses always mutate, and they are far more clever about it than any puny human. But fewer than one in a billion viral species has the slightest interest in infecting you.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

Doesn't this strongly imply that we are actually quite immune to virus naturally, and only that a depressed immune system is what allows viruses to wreak havoc?

sfink 9y ago
You seem to think of viruses as all the same? The headline (and text before the paywall) does not say or imply that these are human-infectious viruses. They're just viruses. As in, a basic form of life, basic enough that it's highly questionable whether it makes sense to call them living. They're everywhere. As are bacteria, and bugs (rapidly descending in orders of magnitude in that "everywhere"!) But it's certainly news to me that trillions are falling from the sky; I would have guessed that uv radiation would disrupt ("kill"?) them.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  >As in, a basic form of life,... From the article: >Do viruses even fit the definition of something alive? You said: >"...does not say or imply that these are human-infectious viruses." Article said: >"Viruses and their prey..." I think it's safe to assume this article's intent is to share information that is not obviously known to everyone, that's it's supposed to be "news" (ie, it's from the New York Times). So let's not pretend that this article is a rehash of common knowledge about the value/state of viruses.