The real cure for COVID is renewing our fractured relationship with the planet

UngulateNerd92

UngulateNerd92

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
Premium Member
James Maskalyk is an emergency physician, associate professor in the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Medicine and author of the forthcoming book Doctor: Heal Thyself. Dave Courchene is the founder of the Turtle Lodge International Centre for Indigenous Education and Wellness and chair of its National Knowledge Keepers’ Council.

If humanity is to endure, the coming months must hold healing, not just of populations across the globe from the coronavirus, but of the Earth herself. As is true of many zoonoses (diseases that jumped from animals), this virus emerged from pressure humans put on a global ecosystem.

A lack of healthy, natural habitat weakens the immune systems of animals and the resulting sicknesses pass rapidly through them. Birds, prairie dogs, pigs, bats. With each infection, a chance for a virus to mutate into one that can sicken humans, and sometimes, global livelihoods. As such, a vaccine alone, no matter how effective, will not tip the balance toward health because COVID-19 is not a disease; it is a symptom of an exhausted planet. The renewal of a healthy relationship to our one shared mother, planet Earth, is the cure.

https://www-theglobeandmail-com.cdn...-is-renewing-our-fractured-relationship-with/
 
UngulateNerd92 said:
A lack of healthy, natural habitat weakens the immune systems of animals and the resulting sicknesses pass rapidly through them
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold statement right there - and full of assumptions.

UngulateNerd92 said:
COVID-19 is not a disease; it is a symptom of an exhausted planet.
Click to expand...

Really? That's what I call hyperbole.

I get that this is an opinion piece - but it's a pretty thin argument IMO.
 
Simon Hampel said:
That's a pretty bold statement right there - and full of assumptions.



Really? That's what I call hyperbole.

I get that this is an opinion piece - but it's a pretty thin argument IMO.
Click to expand...

Sorry for my late response here. To your first point, I am sorry if it doesn't directly address it, but what I will say and the Wildlife Conservation Society has spoken a great deal about this, if you destroy, degrade, or encroach upon a habitat or ecosystem, the viruses, parasites, and bacteria from that ecosystem will find new hosts and most likely we (human societies) are going to be these hosts. One example of this was a tract of rainforest somewhere in Indonesia that was cut down for a palm oil plantation. That tract of forest was a roosting spot for a flying fox colony, and then soon after that tract of forest was cut down, a disease traced from those bats broke out in a nearby village. I am sorry if I don't have the specific source for that with me right now...

To your second point, I totally understand and respect your position on this, however the author does have a valid point when you look at the bigger/broader picture. Even Jane Goodall has talked about Covid-19 being a symptom of a larger problem. Our unhealthy and destructive/extractive relationship with nature.
 
UngulateNerd92 said:
To your second point, I totally understand and respect your position on this, however the author does have a valid point when you look at the bigger/broader picture. Even Jane Goodall has talked about Covid-19 being a symptom of a larger problem. Our unhealthy and destructive/extractive relationship with nature.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think it would have mattered what condition the planet was in - it was only a matter of time before a virus that was both easily transmissable, and deadly to humans - started spreading.

COVID-19 is a virus and we have never successfully created a cure for any virus (Hepatitis C notwithstanding).

Are they trying to suggest that the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 was also because of our treatment of the planet?

How about the 1855 3rd plague pandemic which killed 12-15 million people?

The Cocoliztli epidemic of 1545 which killed 5-15 million people?

Bubonic plague of 1346 whick killed somewhere between 75-200 million people?

How far back do we need to go before we agree that it's not human impact on the planet which causes viruses to spread?

People have always come into contact with viruses - it doesn't take the destruction of habitat to make that happen.
 
Simon Hampel said:
Personally I don't think it would have mattered what condition the planet was in - it was only a matter of time before a virus that was both easily transmissable, and deadly to humans - started spreading.

COVID-19 is a virus and we have never successfully created a cure for any virus (Hepatitis C notwithstanding).

Are they trying to suggest that the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 was also because of our treatment of the planet?

How about the 1855 3rd plague pandemic which killed 12-15 million people?

The Cocoliztli epidemic of 1545 which killed 5-15 million people?

Bubonic plague of 1346 whick killed somewhere between 75-200 million people?

How far back do we need to go before we agree that it's not human impact on the planet which causes viruses to spread?

People have always come into contact with viruses - it doesn't take the destruction of habitat to make that happen.
Click to expand...

Degradation of nature might not be the only factor and it likely wasn't as much of a factor during the pandemics you listed off, but environmental degradation does add fuel to the fire if you will, further increasing our risk of pandemics. I am going to have to go back and find some articles from the Wildlife Conservation Society discussing that specifically.

There are things we can do preventively reducing our risks and they are always worth the time, money and effort.
 
Last edited:
UngulateNerd92 said:
however the author does have a valid point when you look at the bigger/broader picture. Even Jane Goodall has talked about Covid-19 being a symptom of a larger problem.
Click to expand...

The point being made by Simon is not that saying the impact of COVID-19 has been influenced by larger issues is hyperbole in and of itself, I rather suspect he is pointing out - correctly - that extending this to a bold statement that "COVID-19 is not a disease" is hyperbole to a ridiculous degree :p
 
Last edited:
TeaLovingDave said:
The point being made by Simon is not that saying COVID-19 is a symptom of a larger issue is hyperbole in and of itself, I rather suspect he is pointing out - correctly - that extending this to a bold statement that "COVID-19 is not a disease" is hyperbole to a ridiculous degree :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, my bad. Simon is right that it is a hyperbole... Of course Covid-19 is a disease.
 
Last edited:
CheeseChameleon1945 said:
View attachment 524547
View attachment 524549
Click to expand...

Hoping the above isn't meant seriously given that is completely ignoring the context within which this quote was found...

It is clear that as we infringe more on wildlife and further destroy habitats it will increase the frequency with which we are exposed to such zoonotic viruses and thus mean that these kind of epidemics will likely be more frequent, as has been demonstrated by the heightened rate of such viral outbreaks taking place (Ebola, SARS Cov1 as well as of course Covid all in the last 20 years). So the author is not necessarily wrong, they have just drastically exaggerated the language used in the article. Being more environmentally-conscious is in no way a 'cure to Covid' but it could well make such outbreaks less frequent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top