Something is getting lost in translation here, because scientists are not literally "debating" whether viruses are alive. Scientists "discuss" the boundary bet

Something is getting lost in translation here, because scientists are not literally "debating" whether viruses are alive. Scientists "discuss" the boundary between alive and not, which is an interesting question because it doesn't have a super clear and obvious answer. It becomes more a question of semantics and ontology than anything else. What's really happening is that the words "alive" and "not alive" have outlived their usefulness: we need to think about things differently, and use better words, to fully capture how the world works. That's the discussion, and yes it's similar to what's happening with words like intelligence and consciousness in relation to AI.