Natures way of culling the population

[ExD1938]

Am I being unreasonable to be shocked by a neighbour's remark that this pandemic is natures was of reducing the overpopulation of the planet?
I was gobsmacked at first, then I began to wonder ................?. .

There is a theory based on this called the Gaia theory or principle.

The way we treat our environment and animals is far from natural and I think there's a strong link between the virus and that relationship.
I attended a drive by funeral of an early middle aged old schoolfriend of mine a few days ago. He was a major employer living in a very remote part of the country and had never had an episode of ill health before in his life. Thinking of his death as some sort of natural clean up is disgusting and some people may feel better by believing this nonsense but there's little logic to it.

We have lost many species over time though haven't we.

We have been unable to save them all.

Humans are the most destructive force on the planet. Many species would not he e endangered if we hadnt poached/ destroyed their habitat and taken them to the brink of extinction.

Even if some re probably only alive because we caught them and tried to breed them in captivity which doesn't exactly have the best success rate.

No animal turns on eachother the way we do either. The biggest threat to human life is well other humans

@AuldAlliance sure. Naturally the bugs don't all live together in such proximity like in the bug hotels. As with other creatures there are ilnesses which they all share and illnesses and parasites usually attacking only certain kinds. But if they all make themselves comfy in the bug hotel, they end up sharing all that. It's too many and too close together, unlike in nature.
It was few years I read the article and it was in a different language, but if you google there should be something coming up in English too. So what is advised more is to have the mini 1 kind bug hotels and keep them apart, rather than big one intended for more kinds of insects.

Funny how it started in China, one of the most populated places in the world...

Well... yeah.. maths...

Another thread where the OP doesn't bother to put a proper discussion point across or even engage with their own thread.

OP can you articulate any better what you're actually trying to discuss?

The environmentally costly way we live is what has enabled the virus to spread so quickly - that is, flying, high-density accommodation, travel within countries. I am not sure that nature is an entity that can 'decide' to cull populations, though. I think it was an accident waiting to happen. Bear in mind that we have had other plagues and pandemics stretching back through history, when populations were much smaller - but it took longer for them to move between continents.

It does happen naturally to other species, doesn't it? Nobody can argue with that

Yeah there's that mouse isnt there. They invade farms devour all the crops and the feed and when the food runs out they start eating each other...

There’s a few videos about suggesting this was a man made virus which was being studied in China labs.

Worth a look

I’m surprised people don’t think it’s a vile thing to say.

I think it’s something that can be discussed in the right context. But it’s still pretty horrible.

My co-workers started talking about how the virus won’t be so bad only I’ll only kill off the people who were on their way out anyway. They said this as I was packing up my things to work from home because I’m in a high risk group and have regularly spent time in hospital for a breathing difficultly.

Do people like me or the elderly not deserve to be alive? That’s how I hear the culling of population argument.

I've heard this attitude before.

Eugenics is hardly a new idea, it will disproportionately affect the elderly, sick, disabled and poor people in countries with poor healthcare systems. A lot of people would be happy to get their freedoms back and put these people at increased risk.

Just a historical note here. In the 14th century over half the European population died from the plague. The lowest projection is 50m worldwide. The world was not as overpopulated then, with an estimated 5m in England compared with 67m in the UK last year. So was nature "correcting" us then

Well if neighbour isn't worried by Nature's Way, why doesn't neighbour lend Nature a helping hand and volunteer to be culled?

I have noticed that people who are able to calmly contemplate the decreasing of the surplus population always seem to assume that the surplus part won't be themselves or their children- it will be somebody else, somebody probably who looks different, or has a different physique or lives somewhere else.

Hence the jaw-dropping on twitter among politicians and journalists: "This disease is no respecter of persons". With a very strong hint that they didn't mind to much as long as they assumed that it would be.

Do people like me or the elderly not deserve to be alive? That’s how I hear the culling of population argument.

No, I don't think this is what is meant at all - that would be disgusting.

@SarahTancredi you don’t know much about animals do you? Lions come to mind, plenty of interesting documentaries to binge watch about lions tearing each other to bits incase you’re getting bored in lockdown.

Not sure why you're shocked. You only have to look at history to see how natural checks and balances act upon populations. Not even an opinion, it's a fact. It's science. As a species, we have a hand in it too. Face it, we're just a scourge on the face of the planet! We don't deserve it.

I think it's an interesting point that deserves proper discussion not soundbite outrage.

It's shocking to us, as humanity, to consider that any death might be a "good" thing and indeed, for the human race now, it isn't. For the planet and the future there are too many people, but obviously we can't do without any of the ones who are important to me!

I don't think this virus is the answer, it won't kill enough (which is obviously a ridiculous thing to say from a human pov) but it does raise some questions for the future and a realisation of just how fragile the food supply and other infrastructure might be if population keeps growing at the current rate.

I wonder if it might result in a decline in the birth rate?

That is an 'its all for the best' theory. It seems based on the idea that nature is a being with a master-plan that will lead to a better earth.

Anyone who has tried gardening will know that all life is a struggle. No sooner does a green shoot push out of the soil than a million other life-forms are out to give it the black spot.

We are the human versions of those green shoots - and so far have out-witted many mini-dooms. Our cunning brains and our hard-working immune systems are busy with the battle from birth onwards.

I don't think that a vengeful (or even earth-guarding) 'Nature' is out to get us just because we have been successful until now.

So was nature "correcting" us then

I don't think it's helpful to see nature as some sort of avenging force! Aren't we all social distancing? Why is that? Because viruses thrive on transmission between densely packed people. If there are more people around and they are densely packed then yes, the virus will transmit!

Have you all seen the pictures of the pollution in India, before and after, it is amazing. There are far too many humans on the planet and in much of Asia and Africa people lead awful lives. People need to be educated/bribed to produce no more than 2 children (I have none). The fantastic animals of this planet are being destroyed by the plague of humans

Ecologically there is some truth to it.
There is nothing 'disgusting' about ecology (the interlink between different forms of life). 1.There are c. 8 billion human beings - we have never lived at these (possibly unsustainable) levels before so don't exactly know what effect that will have. 2.We have killed some, and domesticated other, possible host species, so there is almost bound to be more new viral 'leaps' between the fewer species that remain, and those we live close to.
3.We live in very close quarters. 4. On a more specific point, our treatment of wild animals, eg bushmeat, wet markets etc, and our reliance on globalised travel creates perfect conditions for new pandemics.

Not sure why the OP was shocked to be honest.

It's important to remember that Nature isn't an entity and doesn't have a plan. This is where creationists who oppose evolution get confused as they think of evolution as trying to achieve an end.

In a way the spread is a consequence of over population, but as others have said it won't be making a significant difference anyway.

Lions come to mind, plenty of interesting documentaries to binge watch about lions tearing each other to bits incase you’re getting bored in lockdown

Lions.dont have guns , bombs, or build nuclear power stations that meltdown, they don't kill thousands of other lions all at once. They dont pollute the oceans.

Of course lions also haven't invented medication or performed cpr and saved lives . But of course humans are the most destructive force on the planet that's hardly an untruthful thing to say.

Do people like me or the elderly not deserve to be alive? That’s how I hear the culling of population argument.

The virus doesn’t just kill every 1000th person for example at random though. The majority of the people who die will be elderly or with existing medical conditions.

Which means when people talk about the virus being good for population control it really is linked to more of a eugenics type sentiment.

It's not so much a horrible way of thinking as a rational way of thinking.