Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Of aiding and invading

Posted by Anekeia on 07 May 2012 at 21:15 GMT

The basic claim of this paper is that one species aided another. That seems like a straightforward idea, but it really isn't, because it entails arguable axioms about species. Firstly, it supposes that species (including viruses) have objectives, and secondly, that one of those objectives is becoming commoner. "Aid" only comes in service of achieving an objective. Absent an objective, the effect is only an effect. The fact that we would be unlikely to say a species could be "aided" in becoming rarer, even as a result of becoming more specialized and mutualistic, suggests an essential teleological anthropomorphism underpins such statements. A virus can be "aided" by an insect if the result is an outcome that is intuitively appealing to a human observer empathizing (however regretfully) with the virus. '"If"' it is true that greater commonness equates to greater fitness, it should follow that commoner viruses are more likely to persist. But maybe it isn't true, especially in a world where commonness inspires organized suppression. Ask variola major. Its unresponsiveness won't indicate rarity. It will indicate that viruses can't answer questions, because they are viruses—the same reason they have no objectives, and cannot be aided. A related caveat applies to "invasion". No matter how commonplace the term becomes, it never appropriately applies to range expansions unless they occur purposefully. It isn't clear that viruses or whiteflies can have such purposes, much less express them. Whiteflies, being motile, can respond to stimuli by moving; but whether they are moving "toward" or "away from" stimuli pretty much tells the tale here.

No competing interests declared.
report a concern respond to this posting