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 ................?. .

It's got nothing to do with overpopulation. There have always been pandemics that have laid waste to a huge percentage of the population ie the black death, small pox etc. The world population at the time of the black death was approximately 475 million and it killed between 30% - 60% in Europe.

@Astoatora54 but even so. You’d be just as correct in predicting that a pandemic would occur sooner or later in 1020 as you would in 2020. Until we create a effective system of pandemic prevention they will be inevitable and a consequence of human settlement in multiple areas with contact across areas. Human are animals and like all other animals we are susceptible to disease. When we have less than 85% immunity to a disease an epidemic will likely occur. Where there are several areas of settlement with regular contact that fall below the herd immunity threshold a pandemic is likely. I’m sorry but cries of scientists have been predicting a pandemic for years, let’s wring our hands a bit about how this is clearly a result of modern dirty polluting lifestyles (as opposed to merely being human and the desire to travel, explore, trade etc that comes with that) is just annoying. Scientists have merely been pointing out the obvious. It doesn’t back silly claims that nature is trying to ‘cull’ humans.

Yes, things like this sometimes happen as result of the way humans use this planet and move about/interact with animals. That in no way amounts to a entity called 'nature' having any intention to do anything.
Why would 'nature' care if the planet remains habitable for humanity anyway? Why would 'nature' care if the climate is earth or Mars? It's such a ridiculous human centric notion to personify nature, or to think that there are natural forces that know what is best for us and share our idea of an 'ideal' environment...which just so happens to be one ideal for our survival.

@iamapixie Honestly that makes no sense scientifically.
Ecologically different life forms are connected. What happens with one species effects other species. New viruses emerge all the time. The difference is that this emerged in an area where it could be transmitted around the world through air travel. Without that it would have been a localised issue.

@malificent7 Except it is not true.

I agree with their remark and thought this myself.

Nature is rather messing it up though.
Killing the elderly will do nothing to check population growth.
Something that killed everybody between 15 and 40 would have a much greater effect
maybe the next one ?

It's not a shocking opinion it's quite a common opinion.

In any situation where population reduces it will be the weak/poor that
Apparently rats in New Orleans are dealing with the food shortages caused by the virus (lockdown) by fighting and eating each other, which will continue until the population is reduced sufficiently that the food supply is adequate. Humans would do the same.

Surely 'nature' (whatever that encompasses) can't think for itself...?

@Makeitgoaway Humans survive best by co-operating. If everyone just fights, less survive. We can see this in practice in various countries.

@SarahTancredi I’m not sure I follow. So the lions eating cubs aren’t turning on each other? Or chimpanzees in territory wars? Ducks raping? Spider cannibalism? I really don’t see how you could plausibly claim that other species don’t turn on each other the way humans do.

When this all started, I joked about being culled. Gallows humour.

And this opinion although not uncommon, shows how little most people understand basic scientific theories. The lack of scientific literacy in the UK is pretty shocking.

It doesn’t back silly claims that nature is trying to ‘cull’ humans.

As I have already said, I don't agree with this sentiment. Nature is not some malevolent god! Viruses prefer dense populations (in more ways than one). There are many things we can do to lower the risk of pandemics and scientists have been pointing this out for years. It is very fatalistic to just say "oh it's going to happen anyway so let's not listen".

alloutoffucks, my posts are so dull and anal and polite that I never get a response so that gave me the shock of my life!
What you're saying dovetails totally with what I was saying so I don't think there is any disagreement! It's just that MN is possibly not the best place to genuinely get into the nitty gritty of ecology as I could write 1000s of words on it but probably, and understandably, no one wants to hear them!! So I may have not made my points perfectly.

If your neighbour wanted to live according to 'natures ways' then he or she would be living a stone age sort of existence.
Or we could say that 'natures ways' gave rise to the human race who developed the various technologies which allow us to extend ourselves and survive pandemics and other challenges

That may be true alloutoffucks but it doesn't stop it happening. When there is a shortage of land/power/food/water humans fight. They may co operate in a group of people against another group but they will still fight to protect their interests.

Go on then @alloutofducks Educate us. I'm all ears.

@crosstalk actually the population at that time in the middle ages was quite intensive for the form of farming - it was only in about the 1700's that UK reached that number again. There is some suggestion that serfs were suffering from malnutrition because of bad/cold weather in 1320's (I think that's the date) onward & not enough food produced to feed the number of people. On top of that there was an outbreak of disease in farm animals. (Sorry nerd time I have read a bit about the black death in the past)
Robert Heinlein the sci fi author theorized that war & natural disaster were necessary to curb the population - this was about the time of the Vietnam war -it wasn't exactly a popular opinion.
I think that thinking about people in numbers depersonalizes the best part of being human that of caring about each other. & I don't think the arbitrary way death occurs is going to strengthen or make for a more worthy better quality population especially when you have very old surviving a young healthy people dying.

Your neighbour just made an observation, that’s all.

@Reginabambina Humans co-operate, that is why we are a successful species. Where we have civil war and people turn on each other, way more die than would have if they cooperated.
During famines, societies that have cooperated, perhaps because they are very religious ones, have more people survive.
Rationing meant more people survived.
Species that do not cooperate tend to be those species that are solitary animal species. Animal species that live in groups/herds cooperate for survival and most rarely have deadly fights with other groups.
Interestingly in apes each group has a dominant one. The most successful ones are those that are liked. The ones who rule by fear and brute force tend to be killed as soon as they get a bit physically weaker.

I don't think it's a shocking opinion. It's not necessarily true- there are lots of reasons people die, all part of nature in one way or another. I can see why people say things like that though!

Besides, we've had much bigger culls in population when the population wasn't as large as it is now. Bubonic plague, the spanish flu etc.

@Makeitgoaway That is a common misconception. It depends very much on the religion and culture of the society. There are lots of cases where no people will not do anything to survive. Particularly if people have a strong belief in an after life.
We live in a time and place that is very individualistic where we are encouraged to put ourselves first before everyone else. It is hard for most people to realise that in a different time and place people literally think about themselves and the world in a very different way. Sometimes for example not even thinking of themselves as an individual I apart from others, but more as a link in a chain.