• Boxscape
      link
      fedilink
      173 hours ago

      Do viruses get snapped too or na

      And da babies in-utero? Did the Infinity Gauntlet go by conception or 24-weeks?

      • partial_accumen
        link
        173 hours ago

        There were zero reports I’ve heard from any TV, movie, or comic reference to the snap of unborn (but possibly viable) babies being left behind (by any species even) when the pregnant mother disappeared in the snap. That suggests the Infinity Gauntlet doesn’t consider the unborn as a separate individual until birth.

        • Boxscape
          link
          fedilink
          52 hours ago

          unborn (but possibly viable) babies being left behind (by any species even) when the pregnant mother disappeared in the snap.

          This scenario didn’t even enter my head when I posed the question. That’s some Stephen King-level imagery though—a snapped mother disappearing only for an amniotic sac to drop in her place.

          • @samus12345
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            I think the Gauntlet counted any beings that either depended on another to live or supported another to live as all one unit for simplicity’s sake.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        33 hours ago

        And da babies in-utero? Did the Infinity Gauntlet go by conception or 24-weeks?

        Now you got this idea in my head, if it would have been possible to know if the Infinity Gauntlet considered conception, couldn’t a species, lets say humans, knowing “the snap” was a possible risk, create massive stores of zygotes kept on ice? Lets say 10 zygotes to every 1 living human. After the snap of “half” that would mean that instead of 50% of humans disappearing it would only have been 2.5%.

        Moreover, since every other species would have lost 50% and been in chaos it would have been prime opportunity to conquer other species still in disarray.

    • @kryptonianCodeMonkey
      link
      225 hours ago

      Finally someone asks the real question. Is there an objective definition to life that Virus may or may not fall under? Or would it depend on Thano’s subjective opinion on the matter?

      • @BenReilly97
        link
        English
        43 hours ago

        The scientific definition of life changes constantly, but viruses more often than not fall under “not alive.”

        Throughout, viruses have rarely been considered alive. More than 120 definitions of life exist today, and most require metabolism, a set of chemical reactions that produce energy. Viruses do not metabolize. They also don’t fit some other common criteria. They do not have cells. They cannot reproduce independently. Viruses are inert packages of DNA or RNA that cannot replicate without a host cell.

        Source

    • GingaNinga
      link
      44 hours ago

      technically viruses aren’t alive. They just use cellular machinery to replicate and thats it.

      • @Nurse_Robot
        link
        9
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Eh, it’s not really that cut and dry. You could debate either way with plenty of evidence, in the end it’s really a limit to the semantics of language

        Edit: here’s a neat article that talks about it

        • GingaNinga
          link
          34 hours ago

          Thats pretty neat “you cant kill something thats not alive”. Can viruses respond to stimuli? We consider bacteria alive but viruses are debated, wheres the line? are enzymes alive? Are prions alive? cool article.