I really like the discussion about what our definition of life is. Most people just assume that we have a good definition that applies to all organisms, but it gets really interesting when we look at organisms such as viruses. They have no metabolism, leave no waste products, and have next to no biological functions, but yet they carry genetic material, and are able to reproduce (with the help of a host).
Most people don't consider a virus to be a form of life, but I still find it strange to classify it as an inanimate object since it can move and reproduce.
In the genome of most viruses there are proteins coded which help them to e.g. get out of the host or protect their genome, so there are biologic functions but they are very minimalistic.
I think anybody with some knowledge about viruses and their interactions with the hosts would think viruses are a form of life.
Hmm, I have always heard the opposite when I studied microbiology; that viruses are not considered life due to the fact that they don't have a metabolism, or are able to reproduce without a host. But it's really up to each and everyone what they want to think of as life I suppose.
Interesting. Agree, not worthwhile to start a dispute on this :)