ROOT CAUSES of Pandemics...
INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF MORE PANDEMICS
Of course, human overpopulation isn't necessary for a pandemic to occur...
However, HUMAN OVERPOPULATION probably *increases* the likelihood that pandemics will emerge more often in the future. "We are changing landscapes and encroaching into systems at a scale that we have never done before... human destruction of natural landscapes is altering the interactions between [other] animals and humans, which also changes the dynamics of the transmission of viruses... We disrupt their ecosystems... build houses next to them... We allow the viruses they carry, that we've never been exposed to in our history, to emerge into our own populations."
Side note: Humans are animals, too, don't forget... remember that we're a mammalian species... genetically not much different from many other animal species on the planet... language matters, as it subconsciously (and sometimes even consciously) affects our thoughts and beliefs... so, it's best that the words we speak and write reflect the truth... cats (feline beings), dogs (canine beings), horses (equine beings), etc., are other animals, because we (human beings) are animals, as well.
Anyway, the more humans living on the planet, the more likely it will be that more pandemics will emerge... and probably more often than only once every hundred years or so... even that is only about one human lifetime... but it very possibly could be more often than that, going forward.
THE HUMAN-OVERPOPULATION CONNECTION
Now, this is not good...
THE PLANET MAY BE IN FOR ANOTHER VIRAL PANDEMIC, WORSE THAN COVID-19
That article is subtitled: "The apocalyptic virus that would make COVID-19 seem irrelevant: Leading scientist warns of the danger of a pandemic triggered by chicken farms that could kill half the world's population."
*Note: The above-linked article is quite long, but it's also quite important... please stay focused. :-)
The current pandemic very likely is merely a "dress rehearsal" for much worse to come... IF WE DON'T SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OUR RATE OF PROCREATION *AND* OTHERWISE SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE WAY WE LIVE, TOO... in my opinion, this will have to include but not be limited to: significant changes to what we eat... and how and where we grow food... and what kind of work we do and where we work (ideally, requiring no commute other than walking or biking)... with *the* most important change being reducing human procreation/reproduction.
Side note: Here in this section and anywhere else on this website that you see "ALL CAPS" that are not in the title of a new section, it's only to add emphasis and is *not* meant as "yelling". :-)
I am a concerned citizen advocating for *ending* HUMAN OVERPOPULATION... (the ROOT CAUSE of just about every major problem on the planet)...
I advocate for ending it by HUMANE means... *not* by pandemics... *not* by famines... *not* by murders/wars... etc....
Usually, as many as those do kill, those actually barely make a dent, though, anyway...
Even if a worse pandemic, for example, and/or global famines, and/or a world war, etc., were to wipe out 50%-65% or more of the human population... (as opposed to a much smaller percentage of the human population that those usually kill... as bad as this current pandemic is, killing far more, far faster, than a typical "flu," it so far has killed, for example, only about 0.004% of the human population of the United States: approximately 123,000 dead human beings in the U.S.A. from COVID-19, so far, as of 2020-06-23, out of about 330,000,000 total human beings in the nation)... anyway, even if something like that could kill 50%-65% of the human population, those are *not* the ways to solve the problems of human overpopulation (including the many, many problems for which human overpopulation is the root cause)... because those are INHUMANE means.
In fact, those INHUMANE situations (epidemics, pandemics, famines, murders/wars, etc.) increasingly arise *because* of the root-cause problem of HUMAN OVERPOPULATION... therefore, by solving the problem of human overpopulation, most of those detrimental situations could be entirely or almost entirely avoided, preventing massive suffering and grief, in the first place.
Human overpopulation *can* be ended HUMANELY, in a fairly short amount of time... (as you can learn below)... by conscious, intelligent, rational, sane, HUMANE choice... to procreate less.
That is THE most effective solution to the problem.
HUMAN BIRTHS ON THE PLANET *STILL* ARE OUTPACING HUMAN DEATHS... BY MORE THAN DOUBLE
Quick way to understand *exponential* growth... and why EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH is a huge problem: Interactive Tutorial.
I advocate strongly for everyone to bring just two kids (at the most) into the world, during their lifetime... or (much better) only one child... regardless of whether anyone else has chosen not to procreate at all (as was my choice, by tubal ligation at age 21)... and we denitely need more people to choose the bearing-no-children choice, too.
Although all of the other ways** to help achieve sustainability on this planet also are important, procreating less is THE most important and most effective action to take.
**See the impressive graphs at the two links below.
Click on this bar graph (from Phys.org), to expand it.
To see this circular graph (from NationalPost.com), click and then scroll down on that page.
Keep this in mind, as well:
"Robust economic growth has become the 'Holy Grail' of public policy and politics. But... growth has become 'uneconomic'..."
"Former World-Bank Senior-Economist Herman Daly explains this in terms we can all understand:
'The economy is a sub-system of a larger system. The larger system being the biosphere, the environment. The biosphere is finite, non-growing, materially closed... So, how can the sub-system just continuously grow and grow and grow?'..."
After serving as Senior Economist at the World Bank, Herman Daly was a professor for the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland in Virginia in the U.S.A.
Herman Daly is a recipient of the Honorary Right-Livelihood Award [Sweden’s alternative to the Nobel Prize], and several other awards.
He also is author of these books: BEYOND GROWTH, and STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS, and FOR THE COMMON GOOD (co-author with John B. Cobb, Jr.), and more.
Worldwide, the advice in this short video is really very important to embrace.
Inarguably, the *exponential* increase in human population is unsustainable.
Always remember, if you want to raise a child (or children), there are many already here who are in need of adoptive parents.
You even could adopt more than two who already are here... in fact, I would encourage that in the case of multiple orphaned siblings as I think it almost never would be okay to separate biological siblings.
HOW IT *IS* HUMANELY POSSIBLE TO RETURN TO A SUSTAINABLE HUMAN POPULATION ON PLANET EARTH
1960--(the year I went home from a hospital for the very first time)--was the year we surpassed the maximum number (of humans) that's sustainable, long term, on this Earth: 3 billion human beings.
That's the number--(3 billion)--(at the most)--to which we have to return and remain--NEARLY FIVE BILLION FEWER than where we rapidly have reached...
The only HUMANE way to remedy our collective folly is by conscious, WISE choice... to prevent pregnancies in the first place... as you already may know or suspect, at least 40% of pregnancies worldwide are unintended, anyway... and, of those, many of the births that result from those pregnancies probably were unwanted, as well... Side note: Although my mother's pregnancy with me, the first-born, was not unintended, I was one of those babies that was unwanted, at least by my father... my mother told me that my father wanted a boy and had told her that she would keep having babies until she produced a boy... lucky for her, the next one born, slightly more than a year later, was my brother... and then she was allowed to stop reproducing... thank God for that, for the obvious reason that's the subject of this page, but also for many other reasons, as well, that I won't go into here).
The problem of human overpopulation IS solvable: "...choose having fewer children, below a two-child average. By voluntarily choosing two--or, preferably one or none--total [human] population will decline to a level where everyone can be properly supported, sustainably... some countries already have this population-reducing average. By following the lead of these countries, world population in 2100 [in only 80 years] would be 5 billion... [instead of the] 11 billion projected..."
"...It can seem hopeless, but there is one personal choice that can help reduce the harmful consequences of our consumption more than any other... to have no more than one child..." [in one's lifetime] "...by 2050 [in only 30 years], we could reduce the [human] population down to 6 billion..." [instead of it climbing to the 10 billion that's projected despite a somewhat slower average growth rate happening at the current time] "...and by the end of the century [2099, in only 79 years], down to 3.5 billion..." [instead of the 11 billion currently projected]***
***[Or it would be 1.5 billion fewer than the 5 billion projected in 79-80 years if some choose to bring two children into the world, instead of just one child... as long as nobody brings in any more than two children. Clearly, though, the zero-to-one-child choice is the best course of action, for the good of humanity... and, just as importantly--or, some may opine, more importantly--for the good of all of the rest of life on this planet, too.]
All over the world, developed and developing countries alike, governments everywhere (of course) have to support everyone's individual choice to bring no more than two children (and preferably only one child, or none) into the world, during one's lifetime.
It *can* be done... just consider all of the wasteful spending governments currently do... instead, redirect those monies toward relevant education about and provision of highly effective forms of contraception (up to and including sterilization of both parents at the time of birth of the second child, if not sooner by choice)... and also redirect some of the massive amounts of money spent on killing people (in wars over resources) toward preventing too many humans from being conceived and born in the first place (fewer humans to sustain)... all over the world... developing and developed nations: BOTH.
If you're concerned about "too many" older people and "too few" younger people to support the larger number of older individuals, you needn't be, if we make another signicant lifestyle change, as well, because: "A study done by Nobel-Prize winner, Elizabeth Blackburn, found that a vegan diet cause[s] more than 500 genes [in human beings] to change in three months, turning on genes that prevent disease, and turning off genes that cause... illnesses."
To learn more, continue reading here.
To increase the chance that you would be viewing the most current version of this page,
please do a HARD-REFRESH on your device, to bypass your cache:
Or, even better: Clear the Cache.