A virus is sometimes described as the smallest infectious agent known to man.A virus is sometimes described as a self-replicating program, known to man and machineThe commonality here, relates to its ...
A virus is sometimes described as the smallest infectious agent known to man.
A virus is sometimes described as a self-replicating program, known to man and machine
The commonality here, relates to its effect in terms of their transmission properties, nuisance value, and their often-sickening effect.
Its’ nature is as it was intended.
This holds true where man and machine are the designated recipients or targets to infiltrate.
Both viruses have evolved to seek-out, infect, and propagate. . We are (as yet), unsure who masterminded the biological version and we know some of the masterminds behind the software version. Mutation and transmutation of both versions, is the key to their success, and therefore their existence. Had we the foresight to determine such mutations, then, both would be “old hat” and the “fodder of history”. And to have that foresight, we’d have to know in one case, more of our own ability to upset and the “cure” for it.
The bio-virus, by design or nature (which may or may not be the same thing), needs a host to reproduce. The cyber-virus, by design and nature needs a host to reproduce.
One is alive and the other is given life.
The code of behaviour is similar and the parallels are perhaps, too many. Change and challenge. Create and consume.
Both versions being ethically allied, it seems that the weak will perish and the strong might sustain. The nature of the man designed the nature of the software though, and in terms of time and evolution, it is pre-dated by the bio-virus so the cycle is therefore, old! So what’s new?
Minor actions within that cycle?
The creators (to date) become victims to their respective design and eventually as before, antibiotics and incarceration become the “cure”!