Discoveries such as this just go to show how arbitrary the definition of "life" is. One might argue that viruses are not life because they are obligate intrace

Discoveries such as this just go to show how arbitrary the definition of "life" is. One might argue that viruses are not life because they are obligate intracellular parasites - but many species of bacteria are too. It used to be that size was the distinction: viruses as small, simple particles and cells much bigger, but large complex viruses also blow this argument out of the water. The only thing left that really distinguishes the "life" of cells and the "maybe-not-maybe-life" of viruses is the presence of ribosomes to synthesis proteins. Maybe one day we'll find a virus-type replicator that also contains ribosomes - and what then? Then there is also the issue of simulating life in silico - at which point does it stop becoming just a simulation and can be considered 'actually' alive? Personally I think these questions are best debated in the context of philosophy and ethics rather than taken as something that the domain of science ought to provide conclusions to.