Future pandemics will be deadlier if we don't change our behavior, scientists say

[CousinIT]

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-04-28-20-intl/h_61c2b7cb27f1154b533d41bab08dfb48

Future pandemics are likely to be more frequent, deadly, and will spread more rapidly, unless we stop the widespread destruction of our environment, a group of four leading scientists say.

"There is a single species that is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic -- us," the group said in a guest article published on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)'s website.
"We have a small window of opportunity, in overcoming the challenges of the current crisis, to avoid sowing the seeds of future ones."

Professors Josef Settele, Sandra Diaz and Eduardo Brondizio and Dr. Peter Daszak drew on research from their IPBES Global Assessment Report last year -- considered the most comprehensive assessment of global nature loss ever -- which concluded 1 million species of plants and animals are at risk of extinction in coming decades.

A perfect storm for disease: "Rampant deforestation, uncontrolled expansion of agriculture, intensive farming, mining and infrastructure development, as well as the exploitation of wild species have created a 'perfect storm' for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people," the scientists said,

"This often occurs in areas where communities live that are most vulnerable to infectious diseases."

The authors warn that this is just the beginning: About 1.7 million unidentified viruses of the type known to infect people are believed to still exist in mammals and water birds.

What they recommend:

Strengthen and enforce environmental regulations -- "and only deploy stimulus packages that offer incentives for more sustainable and nature-positive activities."
Adopt a 'One Health' approach to decision-making -- "recognizing the complex interconnections among the health of people, animals, plants and our shared environment." . . . .

[rickyhall]

1. If we considered our planet, Mother Earth, our god we would respect her as well as fear her.

Might those who feel that way, as I do, be called Gaists?

[Chainfire]

4. It is not earth we need to fear or respect

It is mankind.

The earth is just a mass of rocks circling an insignificant star, in a insignificant galaxy in an insignificant cluster in one of what may be many universes. We are so arrogant as to believe that we matter. In my opinion, assigning paranormal attributes to the earth, even as an analogy, is unproductive, perhaps counter productive. It is my opinion that the earth doesn't give a damn what we do or whether we or any other species survive. We have been and continue to be the most destructive species to ever live on this earth, why would anyone think that we deserve to survive?

In the long run, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what we do or fail to do. Once we destroy ourselves, the earth will come back to life, or not..... Who knows, in a hundred million years some other species may get a chance to do a better job. It is unlikely that any arising species would do a worse job of maintaining our home than we have. If we "progress" to the point that the atmosphere blows away, leaving us barren of all life, it will be no great loss.

Personally, I would prefer that we make positive efforts to curb our destructive patterns and extend the life of our species, because, like all other life forms, I have a hardwired desire to procreate and move my DNA forward. But until, and unless we grow up and start doing what we know is the right thing, we will be destroy ourselves. At this time in may still be our choice.

The first key to survival as a species is to limit and eventually reduce the population. Until that happens, we will continue to exploit nature until we run out of resources out of the short term need to eat and house ourselves. You can't curtail agriculture until you get a handle on overpopulation, or by the same reasoning, if we curtail agriculture, we will limit the population. We know what to do, we are smart enough to figure out how to do it, but we are too hampered by greed to make it happen.

It is entirely up to us whether we survive.

[Chainfire]

2. The destruction of our environment

will certainly lead to our destruction as a species along with the other species that we destroy, but I did quite not understand the correlation of the destruction of species with the rising risk of pandemic, except for the exploitation of wild species. I would think that there would be other factors more important in the spread of disease like millions of people living in close quarters in substandard conditions.

When I read an article about new virus strains being found in melting glaciers and permafrost, I mused that that could be a factor for releasing new pandemics, but I am no scientist.

In any case is an academic argument. As long as big business rules the world, we are not going to stop destroying the natural environment at an increasing pace. Trump has even used the current medical crisis to kill environmental protections. He never misses an opportunity to serve his masters.

[duforsure]

3. It starts with putting into office

People who aren't corrupt, are honest, and intelligent, none of the things trump will ever possess.

[moreland01]

5. Diet

All around the world, the worst hit are the unhealthiest people. Poverty makes for a poor diet. Abundance makes for a poor diet too. Support the healthy fats industry and stop supplementing the grain industry. Promote a food pyramid that doesn't lead to obesity (and its associated health problems like diabetes and heart disease).

[Towlie]

6. "Future"? The PRESENT pandemic will be deadlier if we don't change our behavior!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

7. Human overpopulation

Geez it’s so obvious. Once our activities slowed, nature made a (sadly temporary) comeback.
We will only survive if we change our behaviors AND reduce our numbers.

[Worried2020]

8. Well, then - we're sorta fu*ked . . .

As a race, it took us a few millennia to denude the forests and other resources of Europe, then only a few centuries to repeat our errors in North America.

Beaver were first to go, then Buffalo, then most of the indigenous population, some in slaughter, most with diseases from Europe that the native population was not immune to . . . . and so on . .

Now, satisfying our desires with massive international trade, adding our insatiable mania for non-essential travel - one wee bug can infect the Globe in a matter of months.

And here we are.

(sigh)

W

[MiniMe]

9. How many viruses are frozen in the Arctic and Antartic?

Now that both are melting, how much of that stuff will kill us?