The only reference to 'responding to environment' is when that environment is inside of a host/cell. The rest of the time it's inert. When placed in a literal empty box, it is a dumb protein shell.
Role of receptors - interactions between viral receptor proteins and their hosts are incredibly complex, and include the virus signalling to the host to be more conducive to infection
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246895/
Virus latency also involved activating replication when the environment is right
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_latency
And of course one of the most fascinating parts of virology (in my opinion) is viral surfing and active dissemination (active meaning they do things to infect cells instead of just floating around and bumping things). Viruses bind to a host and then actively move until they reach an ideal entry area
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2171413/
And there are many more but hopefully those are some helpful keywords. But I think you can get a sense of why many virologists treat viruses as living - they are dynamic and interact with their environment, and they evolve under the laws of natural selection. And the more we understand them, the more we realize preconceived notions about them (we originally thought they were just a poison, then some biological chemical, and then dumb protein shells, and now see that they can actually do a lot of crazy stuff - which makes sense because how would a dumb protein she'll be able to stay evolutionarily fit for millions of years against our immune system?
So then that just means everything is alive
Which I also agree with
Energy is life. Life is energy.
Subscribe for more very unorthodox HN comments
Assuming reproduction is a characteristic they possess, why is that different from the others they do not possess? Reproduction relies on host cells so it could be said they possess the other characteristics because they rely on the host cells for those as well.