Pretty sure anyone who knows anything about viruses would say they are alive. Or at least as alive as parasitic nano archaea with genomes smaller than the viruses living right next to them... The philosophical way to look at it is humans aren't alive in the space between planets they live inside these little hard shells, then when they get to a planet they go wild using all the other resources around them made of biomass. Viruses are just this, their biome isn't the wider one you participate in instead they are sub-cellular life, in the same way you are sub-planetary life. Humans don't make the oxygen atmosphere on the planet themselves, they parasitize this feature of planets from other life. In the same way viruses use cellular machinery.

This guy agrees with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgS1Lwr8gq8

> Pretty sure anyone who knows anything about viruses would say they are alive

Whilst I don't doubt that, viruses don't abide by typical definitions of life that would include self-replication. Obviously, they do replicate, but not by themselves.

I thought "has a metabolism" (consumes food and produces waste) was the one viruses didn't fit with.

That as well. They also don't respond to their environment.

Men like me also don't replicate by ourselves. Does that mean that we are not alive?

Humans though, can create more humans, but viruses can't create more viruses without using the machinery within a cell that it compromises.

If humans create oxygen with a machine, is that parasitic?

I feel like what trips people up is the abstraction layer.

Viruses are abstracted on top of other living things in the same way that animals are abstracted on top of plants, in that they both require the lower layer of abstraction for their basic survival.