11th March 2022
In this investigation, we delve into our past and present relationship with Nature and each other.
COVID-19 entered the world stage two years ago. While many of us have found ways to live with its prolonged presence, its act is far from over. The world death toll has now passed 6 million.
We’re deeply curious about the causes of the pandemic and why it’s persisted. The immediate trigger of the virus is clear - most scientists agree on zoonotic origins. However, there is much more to it in light of the pandemic’s reverberations.
To see the bigger picture, we first looked at the channels through which coronaviruses are transmitted. Scientists and researchers concur there's enough evidence to strongly suggest the virus can be traced to zoonotic species, possibly bats, pangolins, or raccoon dogs. Such findings have been reached through coronavirus genome research and ecological studies. The epidemiology of the virus is also similar to past outbreaks of coronavirus linked to animals. For instance, SARS was known to have been transmitted from bats to civets before the human outbreak in 2002.
From there on, it was clear we needed to understand what sort of circumstances are triggering increased transmissions. It seemed as though we opened a pandora’s box, which led us to deeply rooted socioeconomic factors that are perpetually testing our planet.
We can break it down as follows:
Why the Zoonotic Leap?
Let's say we trust the evidence supporting direct or indirect animal-to-human transmission. Wildlife trade is a major culprit. Evolutionary biologist Edward Holmes recently explained that as long as wildlife animals are sold to the public anywhere, the risk of viral outbreaks will be high. Many studies have also shown that the depletion of ecological communities are linked to viral transmissions. When forests and other natural habitats are haphazardly altered for urban or agricultural use, which species are most likely to survive? Bats, along with other rodents.
Let’s take bats as just one host example. Not only do they survive, but they also adapt and multiply. In addition, they transmit pathogens with startling efficiency. Why? Firstly, there are different variations of bats worldwide. Secondly, bats are mammals that can fly, living in urban and rural areas. Thirdly, as hosts, they pose virtually zero risk to themselves. Their high metabolic rate prevents the internal spread of viruses they pick up along the way, though they are intact and passed on.
It would appear as though bats are the culprit. Quite the opposite. They play a critical role as pest controllers. Bats pollinate plants and disperse seeds. To scientists, the most logical solution is for governments to reduce the risk of future outbreaks by protecting natural habitats and cutting off wildlife trade. In April 2020, researchers at Stanford University found that deforestation in Uganda provoked increased contact between primates and humans. The study highlights that as a result of land conversion, locals are forced to live on the edge of forest habitats and, while doing so, tend to go into forests for resources. Similarly, primates venture out of their habitats to find crops. Therein lies transmission.
While multiple studies have been conducted over the past decade, people haven't taken these specific environmental issues very seriously until now - now that COVID-19 threatens our habitual lifestyles. For instance, the Nipah Virus (NiV), identified in Malaysia in 1998, clearly demonstrated what was at stake. NiV is understood to have originated from fruit bats. A report from WHO indicated that the increase in human infections ran parallel to the dwindling number of natural bat habitats. When those bats encountered stress or hunger, they excreted more of whatever virus they were carrying. It’s evident that when land is irresponsibly treated, it is harmful on all levels.
What are the Drivers of Deforestation?
In “The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss,” Wood, Mang & Edwards argue that excessive harvests, pollution, and land-use change* are the immediate causes of biodiversity loss, with forced land change the most significant. However, they note that socioeconomic factors which propel environmental degradation are much more convoluted. Factors like globalisation, inequality, poverty, international macroeconomic and trade pressure, and their link to land abuse are discussed at length. The general idea is better understood when Edwards explains that “the economic, political, social and cultural structure that shape our world almost all promote resource consumption…and recognise little value in biodiversity". We understand the value of the resources we need and do anything in our power to get them. However, the necessity and sophistication of our natural habitats are tragically undervalued in comparison. To make a long story short, the fact that our survival is inextricably linked to the healthy livelihood of our ecosystems hasn't hit home yet.
Nonetheless, we can use the global food system as an example of one of the main factors in ecological depletion. Chatham House released a study explaining that we’ve seen the push for cheaper food in the last several decades, which requires higher amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and energy. The lower cost of food production results in increased demand that “must be produced at a lower cost through more intensification and further land clearance.” While the heavy production of palm oil, soybeans, and wood products contributes to deforestation, an overwhelming number of scientists highlight beef production as the number one cause. From 2000 to 2011, beef production emitted nearly 200 times more greenhouse gases than soy and 60 times more than palm oil.
Dialogue and collaboration between international, national, regional, and district leaders and environmental scientists are needed for resolve. Our commitment to their directions is imperative. Think tanks and scientists have frequently called for increased plant-based diets and meals because of the heavy burden animal farming is placing on the environment. Other essential measures would include land protection, restoring native ecosystems, and the reduction of global waste.
Immediate and absolute kindness to our planet is now, quite frankly, a matter of life and death.
*Land-use change: refers to the process by which humans transform the natural landscape.
A History of Exploitation and Conquest
Some scientists believe we live in a time referred to as “Anthropocene". It means that human beings have, to date, had such a fundamental impact on the Earth that it will drastically and irreversibly influence the environment for years to come. Human activity, as opposed to natural and organic development, is now intensely decisive.
In a study by Maslin and Lewis at UCL, entitled "The Human Planet: How We Created The Anthropocene", it’s argued that Anthropocene began with colonialism and slavery in the 16th century. Whether we are or we are not in Anthropocene is largely debated by scientists. Nevertheless, Maslin and Lewis uncover important accounts of our history with the environment. Colonialism did not just entail exporting people but also fauna and flora. Once America was discovered, Europeans were soon eating their produce. They also highlight China as an example, explaining that “the arrival of maize allowed drier lands to be farmed, driving new waves of deforestation and a large population increase". With America’s colonization came a trade triangle; European manufactured goods made their way to Africa in exchange for slaves, who were taken to America’s plantations to farm cotton, which made its way back to Europe. And of course, during all this trade, rodents slid into ships and contributed to outbreaks of disease.
The roots of this global conundrum are not complex to understand if we speak plainly - we tend to want what we want, when we want it and where we want it. Take colonialism, for example. Colonialists simply dug their flagpoles into foreign soil, draining the resources of another for power and empire. There was no regard for the environment and the native communities that inhabited them. For the most part, we’ve seen ourselves as landlords rather than custodians.
Many experts agree the solution is not to halt trade altogether and dispose of globalisation’s more positive effects. They call for balance. It will require collaboration on reduced waste, responsible consumption, and a middle ground between trade liberalisation and environmental stewardship.
Case Studies in History:
The following historical accounts vividly illustrate the deeply rooted socioeconomic issues that are still straining our world. These case studies are not discussed to distribute a fresh round of blame on any country or society. Real examples are useful in clearly identifying underlying problems.
It’s not all bad news. We also look at progress worth celebrating - progress that has been achieved through collaboration and a real desire to shift gears.
The First Nations People of Australia
Recorded human history of the Pacific region dates back at least 65,000 years ago. First Nations People encompass both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first inhabitants of Australia. Before the arrival of the British in the 18th century, the First Nations people developed efficient agricultural and architectural systems as a result of their deep connection to the land. After Captain James Cook’s initial discovery in the Pacific, the land seemed highly lucrative for the British empire. In addition, British criminals convicted of petty crimes could easily be exported to established penal colonies in Australia from 1788 onward.
The First Nations people encountered horrific treatment. Their population swiftly decreased due to incoming new diseases and violent conflict. With the arrival of colonisers, epidemic diseases including influenza, smallpox, and measles hit various clans. The first Governor of Sydney, Arthur Phillip, reported that smallpox killed 50% of the Aboriginal communities in Sydney within a year of the arrival of the first convict fleet. First Nations women were sexually exploited, and this contributed to the spread of venereal disease in their communities. Historian John Tosh describes the violent aspects of colonisation as "expressions of masculinity... which served most effectively to sustain men's power over women in society as a whole".
The list of crimes against First Nations communities is overwhelmingly long. Bodies like the United Nations have now recognised the invaluable contribution of Indigenous communities all over the world, especially since most of the areas with the highest biodiversity are inhabited by them. The Australian government, along with other governments around the world, are waking up to the fundamental knowledge First Nations people have and are now much more invested in their protection. A growing number of proposals from government and non-governmental bodies call for greater collaboration. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) passed in Australia in 1999 highlights the important role First Nations people have in conservation and sustainability. It seeks to increase the inclusion of First Nations people in ecological and environmental decision-making.
The Case of Indian Tigers
Excessive hunting, conducted for sport, has been a strain on Nature. One striking example is the hunting of tigers in India in the 19th and 20th centuries. Joseph Sramek draws attention to a prominent British perspective that the tiger reflected all that was “wild and untamed in the Indian natural world". Many British royals took pride in being photographed next to conquered carcasses. If that’s not crude enough, apparently tigers were also hunted because it symbolised British masculinity. Not only was it an apparent confirmation of the illusion of man over Nature, but it also validated British rule over Indians. For “practical” reasons, tiger-hunting also made way for more agricultural production and revenue for the empire.
It was not just British colonialists, though they may have taken it to a new level. The Mughal Emperors, who invaded Central Asia and subsequently ruled over the Indian subcontinent, hunted animals in a grand and ceremonial fashion. Royal hunts were held in game reserves or open forests. It is estimated that between 1580-1616, Emperor Jahangir alone was responsible for the slaughter of almost 24,000 animals, of which he killed 17,000. During British colonial rule, it is estimated that 80,000 tigers were killed between 1876 to 1925. Tigers are vital to a healthy and balanced ecosystem, acting as primary predators who keep the population of ungulates in check. Hunting was banned in 1973 with the shock that out of the approximate 58,000 tigers alive 200 years ago, just under 2000 have survived.
The Natural Resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Historian Dan Snow wrote that the“Democratic Republic of Congo is potentially one of the richest countries on earth, but colonialism, slavery, and corruption have turned it into one of the poorest". The DRC contains almost every type of mineral - copper, diamonds, uranium, gold - yet there is severe poverty. During the 15th century, the Kingdom of Kongo was abundant and powerful. One major red flag was that Alfonso I, ruler from 1507 to 1542, engaged in the slave trade with Portugal in exchange for religious institution building. Within Kongo, slaves were sometimes found in African prisoners of war, many of whom were sent to Europe. Those born in Kongo were also enslaved later.
The region completely fell apart with the increased arrival of Europeans toward the end of the 15th century. They grew intoxicated with the area’s rich supply of resources and slaves. The exploitation of the land was carried out through manufactured chaos; the Portuguese provided rebels with weapons and money. Political instability thus followed. Without their leaders, the Congolese people could not be protected from enslavement. Eventually, they too were taken as slaves and shipped overseas.
Exploitation only grew. In the late 19th century, the demand for rubber boomed. There was a growing fixation with bicycles in Europe. Colonial powers raced to find a reliable source. Congo’s rainforests were seen as the answer, where certain trees (Funtima Elastica) could be tapped into. Leopold II, King of Belgium, exerted colonial power in Congo from 1865 to 1909. Disturbing historical accounts detail how Belgian forces treated the Congolese. Leopold II’s rule is associated with 10 million Congolese deaths. He would order Belgian forces to cut off the hands of workers who did not meet their quotas for rubber vine and sap collections. Visual documentation of this period can be found online.
Once these events were uncovered in the international community, Leopold II was forced to hand over the Congo Free State to the Belgian government in 1908. However, his designs on Congo’s natural resources lived on. The area is still targeted for rubber and palm oil. In addition to the political instability deepened by years of violence and corruption, the construction of plantations led to wide-scale environmental destruction.
We're still playing the same game, just with different players. As demand and decadence increase, more forests are cleared for more commodities such as timber. Automobile industries play a large role in deforestation in areas such as Cambodia, where natural habitats have been destroyed for plantations. These developments are fuelled by major modern producers and consumers, such as China and the United States, with the former encroaching on the world's most important habitats.
Poorly Disguised: Contemporary Colonialism and Imperialism
Another more contemporary form of colonialism is known as “Waste Colonialism”. This phrase was coined by the United Nations Environmental Programme Basel Convention in 1989. Waste colonialism is when more prosperous countries export their waste to other nations. The Guardian reported that 141 containers of plastic waste from Germany arrived in Turkey in late 2020. Since the Turkish authorities refused the shipment, the contents within the container began to rot, attracting rodents. People suspect most of this waste will be forwarded to Vietnam. Germany has refused to take responsibility for it. It is not uncommon for waste to be sent to countries that lack stringent regulations. The United Kingdom and France have also been reported to send their waste abroad for other nations to deal with.
Absolving responsibility in the name of quick gains is a huge problem. It is possible to correct course. Take the ozone layer, for example. It is finally healing. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 is a beacon that shines a light on what is possible when we work together. In 1985, scientists noticed that the ozone layer was suffering from extreme depletion. Experts rushed to make the dangers of excessive UV radiation known to everyone. Governments collaborated and agreed on steps to reduce global production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. While we still have a way to go, the UN reported that since 2000, parts of the ozone have “recovered at a rate of 1-3% every 10 years". If we continue with our commitments to the environment, we should see complete healing by 2050.
We seem to always want more. More control, more land, more goods. Enough is rarely enough. Imperialists are just large-scale reflections of humanity. They desire economic and political power for greater security. Just look at Putin’s brutal and unprovoked campaign in the middle of a pandemic. He claims he invaded Ukraine in the early hours of the 24th of February this year because Russia is not safe. His reasons, which include “nazification” and “oppression” in Ukraine, are deliriously false justifications. In truth, it stems from a deep sense of fear and insecurity cloaked in aggression.
The truth is that Ukraine’s growing democracy and relationship with the West threatens Putin’s hopes for a buffer. His desire to return to Soviet imperialism of the 19th century is so fierce that he undermines Ukraine’s legal statehood. The severity of destruction we’re witnessing is largely a result of one man’s unchecked need for toxic validation.
We fortunately still have forces that counter such behaviour. During the siege of Ukraine, we’ve seen the immense bravery of its citizens, and in particular, its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. We’ve seen Polish and German neighbours opening their hearts to incoming Ukrainian refugees by accepting them into their homes or supplying them with food and supplies at borders and train stations. While Putin has no regard for how his invasion is affecting a world community in need of respite, he also picked a time of increased sensitivity and alertness. Every day that passes, most of humanity refuses to look away from the events in Ukraine. American veterans want to go fight with Ukraine because, unlike previous military campaigns, this one’s goal is very clear to them - they must stand with what is right. They feel an innate drive to help a country that truly desires to maintain democracy and liberty. It doesn’t stop there. Companies like BP, Visa, American Express, MasterCard, Inditex, and Ikea are just a few examples of the hundreds moving out of Russia.
On a Reflective Note
Ultimately, we are the root cause of this pandemic. We can clearly connect coronaviruses to years of environmental exploitation and excess. The historical accounts we look into never reveal that colonialists or imperialists invaded other countries because of suffering or starvation within their borders. It was greed or egotistical reactions to a void, which destroyed everything in its path. This tendency does not just come up in our leaders. It lies within us too.
Let's take a very mild everyday example of behaviour that leads to excess. I used to often shop for a new outfit at Zara when I had a social engagement. It was easy, inexpensive, and readily available. Eventually, once I lost interest in the new outfits, they would gather dust. In retrospect, I understand I did it because I felt insecure about how I looked. The outfits were like masks. I eventually realised not only was I fuelling fast fashion, but I was also being inauthentic with my so-called friends. Continuing with the habit would have been a disservice to myself, my friends, and the environment. This isn't to say one should never shop at Zara, or never buy an outfit for an occasion. It's more about being conscious of why we do what we do. Let's just say acting out of excessive emotion or insecurity is never a good idea.
Some of us also decided to start working with Nature, instead of against it. Plenty of resources can be found online, and thereafter, we believe committing to something that resonates is a worthwhile step forward.
Conclusion
It will be interesting to watch countries that now hold the trump cards. How will they choose to act? Will they follow the footsteps of their previous oppressors to avenge the past and declare themselves superior, or will they floor us all and stop the historic cycle of selfish domination with heart and respect?
The latter is a tall order and doesn’t seem realistic.
However, in this case, nothing would give us more joy than to be proved wrong.
Comments