Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker.
I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense.
It's fascinating to consider to what extent this false notion of causation and agency may constrain a native English speaker's understanding of the world.
> Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker.
As a native English speaker, I disagree; it is a perfectly natural way for the intended message to be communicated in English.
> I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense.
A subject need not be an (semantic, much less also self-willed) agent (and, when it is, it can , and misleading anthropomorphization is in no way a peculiarity of English speakers.
“Evolution favored variants which enhance host sociability” has a subject, which is a semantic (but not self-willed) agent.
“Variants which enhanced host sociability are favored by evolution” has a subject, which is the patient rather than the agent.
Both are quite natural English expressions, and (unlike attributing will to the virus) accurate (or, at least, describe a plausible phenomenon.)
I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense.
It's fascinating to consider to what extent this false notion of causation and agency may constrain a native English speaker's understanding of the world.