Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Natures way of culling the population

229 replies

ExD1938 · 15/04/2020 15:48

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

OP posts:
Nelliana · 15/04/2020 18:41

And many of them on this thread and elsewhere are positively revelling in getting rid of those pesky pensioners.

Not seen any posts like that 🤷‍♂️ Amazing what people find to read 'between the lines'

sadeyedladyofthelowlandsea · 15/04/2020 18:46

@TheCanterburyWhales another historian/archaeologist here. People bringing up Malthusian theory without mentioning the context he was writing in may have missed one or two key elements there... Wink

He was a eugenecist and a thoroughly nasty bastard for anyone else who wants to throw his name into the ring to support this argument. He didn't believe in indiscriminate charity, and thought that overpopulation might lead to a cull of the 'undeserving' poor - which he saw as a good thing. So be wary of invoking Malthusian Theory, unless you've actually read what he wrote - and no, he wasn't a philosopher. He was a wanker. The 18thC equivalent of a Daily Mail columnist.

OmgThereAreNoPlanesAboveMeNow · 15/04/2020 18:49

I have not seen anyone positively revelling in getting rid of pesky pensionersHmm Unfair and quite disturbing accusation

Astoatora54 · 15/04/2020 18:50

No that’s not nature’s way of culling the population. It’s the natural consequences of moving lots of hosts closer together meaning viruses spread faster and to more people than it would otherwise.*
Which is exactly my point! When people talk about "nature's way" they are not necessarily saying that nature has "decided" to take revenge, it can just be shorthand for what you said.

PotholeParadise · 15/04/2020 18:55

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 would have gone with naïve more than unreasonable. When people say things like that to me, I just roll my eyes behind their back.

Nature doesn't have a mind. The perception of Nature as an austere goddess with a vision for the world follows us still but it's not how it works!

Latteaday123 · 15/04/2020 18:55

@WhyCantIThinkOfAGoodOne and @noworklifebalance what you said makes total sense to me.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 15/04/2020 18:56

Out of interest.

Does anyone extolling the virtues of coming out of lockdown understand how expensive that virus will be?

What will we do with the bodies?

Who will treat the sick? The rocketing numbers of COVID-19 patients and those suffering from other illnesses who will have no services because all other resources are needed to treat COVID-19 patients?

How will we persuade HCP to carry on?

Where will the PPE come from?

How will vulnerable portions of our population survive when resources have been siphoned off to the (dying) NHS and the already small number of social workers etc is smaller still?

How will we justify allowing the virus to go unchecked through socially deprived and crowded areas while the middle classes enjoy the advantages of lockdown ending? Or would we keep people living close together in lockdown as well?

How would we compensate in the short and medium term for large numbers of workers who are simply unable to work/teach/childmind because they're sick, recently bereaved, widowed or deceased?

Looking at the death rate as we enter the flattening of the curve, could I remind you that this was a glimpse of what was to come, not really a 'peak' in terms of what the virus is capable of? Also, the numbers we saw would never be that manageable once we passed the point at which the NHS could offer beds? And of course that would leave many HCP working in exactly the conditions that would cause an immune response that would kill them too? Leaving many struggling to access healthcare and of course, vulnerable people unable to reach a safe space where their healthcare could be safely given (because nothing can be done that compromises the immune system while the viruse is unchecked).

That's not hysteria. That's just modelling.

DameFanny · 15/04/2020 18:56

"Some think it came from a meat market, some from a lab.
We all have opinions, and the world is vastly over populated."

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one but that doesn't mean we should have to listen to it

SarahTancredi · 15/04/2020 19:06

Does anyone extolling the virtues of coming out of lockdown understand how expensive that virus will be?

This lockdown is costing us 2.4 billion pounds a day

However bleak exiting it seems . Staying in it is not an option either is it...

We will all be paying for this the rest if our lives regardless

MrsKypp · 15/04/2020 19:08

I find it very sad when a wealthy country doesn't do enough to protect its more vulnerable citizens.

I wish we had German health care instead of the NHS.

DGRossetti · 15/04/2020 19:08

We just know that poverty also kills

In a world where 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth or close to, I'd argue that poverty is a man made construct.

PhilCornwall1 · 15/04/2020 19:13

Does anyone extolling the virtues of coming out of lockdown understand how expensive that virus will be?

What do you think it's costing now?

I know what I'd let happen next, but it wouldn't be popular by any means.

Millicent10 · 15/04/2020 19:15

Is that you Dominic, how are you these days?

Sceptre86 · 15/04/2020 19:18

Maybe. Not a nice thought though. You could say the same for miscarriages. Again not a nice thing to think or say.

PhilCornwall1 · 15/04/2020 19:19

@Millicent10 Doing better now thanks, still a bit out of breath from running away. Bit of a persistent bark too.

Yours

Dom

noworklifebalance · 15/04/2020 19:37

A virus is just s virus - get the conditions right and it will be rampant.
One reason the bubonic plague would have wiped out more people is that medicine, public health etc were not an iota of what it is today.

"Nature's way" is a turn of phrase - I don't think it was meant to suggest it was covid19 was part of a grand plan to control human population. However, when a species starts to outgrow its environment then some external pressure could easily lead to significant reduction of its numbers e.g. lack of food, disease.

Is covid19 spreading so readily because of over population and human practices, such as travel? Probably.
Is it more likely to affect the vulnerable? Yes, everything does by definition - the nature of the vulnerability will depend on what the disease/external pressure is.
Does the fact that I am saying this mean that I want all elderly people to die or think they are expendable? That is hysteria, which gets in the way of any meaningful discussion.

OmgThereAreNoPlanesAboveMeNow · 15/04/2020 19:43

Bubonic plague is still around btw! China had few deaths from it in November....

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 15/04/2020 19:43

Explain to me why ending the lockdown would be cheaper. Explain it. Saying the lockdown is expensive makes no difference if you cannot explain how ending the lockdown would be less expensive.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 15/04/2020 19:44

philcornwall

Exactly what would you do.

noworklifebalance · 15/04/2020 19:49

Bubonic plague is still around btw! China had few deaths from it in November....

But the the death toll is not the same as in 1665.
Covid19 in 1665 (apart from having a different name) would have had significantly higher death toll per million. However, it may not have a been a worldwide pandemic due to limited travel; instead it probably would have devastated a continent or two.

Lockheart · 15/04/2020 19:54

Agree that this virus isn't big enough for that.

But nature (and no, nature isn't a conscious entity, just a natural phenomenon) does have a way of correcting overpopulation of animals (and humans ARE animals) - be that through lack of resources (food), the spread of disease, or potentially in our case at some point, man-made climate change.

It might not be a pleasant thought, but there's only so large a population of a particular species the planet can sustain. Sooner or later we'll reach that limit.

LilacTree1 · 15/04/2020 19:56

Is SAGE still on “80% will get it as a mild illness”?

Unless they’ve changed that, ending lockdown will certainly be cheaper.

LilacTree1 · 15/04/2020 19:57

Phil “ I know what I'd let happen next, but it wouldn't be popular by any means.”

Do I detect hope? In a sea of aloneness?

PhoebesBirthMom · 15/04/2020 20:02

In a world where 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth or close to, I'd argue that poverty is a man made construct.

Well, quite. Perhaps the post-covid world will see the rich being forced to distribute their wealth to the poor.
Globally though, that means most of the Western World - even the poorest - giving up pretty much everything to support those in the developing world.

MrsKypp · 15/04/2020 20:02

They were claiming a 1% 'death' rate not long ago and I remember seeing a man on the news saying he wasn't bothered because only 1/100 people died... Shock

... and now they've revised it up a few percent.

Then there will be people who survive it, but who are left with damage to their lungs, brains, kidneys, etc