Kudos to Andrea Germanos for a masterfully lucid explanation of an important (I think surprising) result. You, my dear Ms. Germanos, are an excellent science writer! That’s an exceptionally rare and treasured talent - may you carry it far.
So graceful yet so fatal.
This article has one bright spot. We will likely kill off enough of us with bioweapons created from our own feces before it is uninhabitable for any animals more sophisticated then cockroaches.
There was also a link with another issue facing the planet—population growth. The team found an increase of 10,000 people per square mile was associated with a 3 percent increase in antibiotic resistance in E. coli and 6 percent for K. pneumoniae.
The population of the planet increases at three additional people per second. So do the math.
Don’t forget Lyme and the many co infections . 300,000 a year that they know of .
Climate change and it’s effects are directly connected. Beetle kill of trees in forests in the drought plagued western US is in part caused by lessened sap production in drought weakened trees. It is the sap in healthy trees which helps fight off the beetle killing effects now occurring these drought weakened trees. Can we take this weakening of trees as an example and go another step (as the article does with virus)? I have read a in a couple of articles that the acidification of the oceans due to the excess intake of human induced global warming carbon into the atmosphere is killing the phytoplankton in the seas. This phytoplankton is responsible for the production of around half of the annual oxygen production in the air we breathe. The other half is attributed to rainforests which are being slaughtered at ever increasing rates around the world. My question is this. Will this ever decreasing ratio of O2 in the atmosphere slowly weaken animals/humans to the point where we are less able to fight off disease?
I think that (population) accounts for the disruption of natural ecosystems that create natural protections. The human body produces its own antibiotics, artificial or man made antibiotics produce a much larger influence, when you multiply that by thousand or millions of people it is a greater effect. A city with 11 million people is not that different than an artificially created factory farm. This has been known for a long time. The Ebola epidemic is a good example with the possibility of pandemic creep.
Great analogy; overcrowded cities and factory farms.
Now we have to begin the conversation about natalism.
Geoengineering and climate engineering also adding to the equation
Actually, large cities and factory farms do make a meaningful analogy, but for a slightly different reason than one might see immediately.
A factory farm is not just a large population of animals, nor is a city just a large population of humans. Both are large concentrations of one particular sort of animal cut apart from the other creatures and conditions that would support the population and also take care of and use its waste.
That is very much like a city. That’s why we use the example of a factory farm instead of, say, enormous herds of grazing buffalo or wildebeast that stretched to one or another horizon, or flocks of passenger pigeons that darkened the American skies. These enormous and concentrated populations of animals survived and helped regenerate the ecosystems that supported them because they were not held apart from the means of their support by other beings that intended to extract from them a profit.
Humans have managed to exist within cities as long and as radically as we have because almost all of our means of support has been separated from us, because we have been alienated from the processes of our lives by people who extract a sort of profit from these processes.
We can have this many people, if–big if–we return to our own processes. This means decentralized and localized food and energy. It’s problematic.
Uh no, we can’t and for the same reason factory farms are failing.
We can if.
Have a look at the argument, and let’s go from there. There’s more that can be said, but I don’t know what to explain or answer until I get a question or an argument.
Yes, I noted the population growth statement - which is a red flag because it’s basically a sociopath movement that wants to kill half the worlds population(which is idiocy because then it doubles again in a few decades. The real way to curve population is education - the generation being educated instantly has less kids simply for making it to high school.
Hey there’s someone on this site that thinks nuclear war would be a good thing because it will kill people. Typical of someone who subscribes to that 0 population growth movement. Billionaires subscribe to that movement. I’m going to say be wary that this piece exists only for that piece of propaganda. Notice how it was just thrown in there on a “global warming” piece and other issues likes animals getting antibiotics aren’t mentioned.
Wow, so if you’re questioning natalism and think having children is a bad idea because of habitat overshoot and climate change, then you’re a billionaire who wants nuclear war.
No you can not because even if you have decentralized food and energy, (whatever that is, ) you still have increases in resource consumption.
It is basic math.
The planet is finite with finite resources. More people, less resources, no matter how you exploit those resources.
I don’t know what the heck you just said. Sounds like you’re making up crap.
I am making up math?
You have ten apples and twenty people. Someone is not getting an apple.
It takes resources to grow apples.
So what is your point? What do you want to do with the people? I suggested education because it’s proven to make less babies. Europe and the US are on negative population growth. We have to rely on immigrants. What do you want to do with the people? Kill them?