There is now firm evidence of a strong link between environmental destruction and the increased emergence of deadly new diseases such as Covid-19. Indeed, increasing numbers of deadly new pandemics will afflict the planet if levels of deforestation and biodiversity loss continue at their current catastrophic rates. That is the conclusion of scientists who will present reports at the end of this month to the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity under the theme of “Urgent action on biodiversity for sustainable development.”
There, delegates will hear that rampant deforestation, uncontrolled expansion of farming and the building of mines in remote regions – as well as the exploitation of wild animals as sources of food, traditional medicines and exotic pets – are creating a “perfect storm” for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people.
Almost a third of all emerging diseases have originated through the process of land use change. As a result, five or six new epidemics a year could soon affect Earth’s population. “There are now a whole raft of activities – illegal logging, clearing and mining – with associated international trades in bushmeat and exotic pets that have created this crisis,” says Stuart Pimm, professor of conservation at Duke University. “In the case of Covid-19, it has cost the world trillions of dollars and already killed almost a million people, so clearly urgent action is needed.”
It is estimated that tens of millions of hectares of rainforest and other wild environments are being bulldozed every year to cultivate palm trees, farm cattle, extract oil and provide access to mines and mineral deposits.
This leads to the widespread destruction of vegetation and wildlife that are hosts to countless species of viruses and bacteria, most unknown to science. Those microbes can then accidentally infect new hosts, such as humans and domestic livestock. Such events are known as spillovers. Crucially, if viruses thrive in their new human hosts they can infect other individuals. This is known as transmission and the result can be a new, emerging disease.
Zoologist David Redding, of University College London explains what happens in places where trees are being cleared, mosaics of fields, created around farms, appear in the landscape interspersed with parcels of old forest. “This increases the interface between the wild and the cultivated. Bats, rodents and other pests carrying strange new viruses come from surviving clumps of forests and infect farm animals – who then pass on these infections to humans.”
In the past many outbreaks of new diseases remained in contained areas. However, the development of cheap air travel has changed that picture and diseases can appear across the globe before scientists have fully realised what is happening. “The onward transmission of a new disease is also another really important element in the pandemic story,” said Professor James Wood, head of veterinary medicine at Cambridge University. “Consider the swine flu pandemic. We flew that around the world several times before we realised what was going on. Global connectivity has allowed – and is still allowing – Covid-19 to be transmitted to just about every country on Earth.”
In a paper published in Science last month, Pimm, Dobson and other scientists and economists propose setting up a programme to monitor wildlife, reduce spillovers, end the wildlife meat trade and reduce deforestation.
They estimate that such a scheme could cost more than $20bn a year, a price tag that is dwarfed by the cost of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has wiped trillions of dollars from national economies round the world. Spending of about $260bn over 10 years would substantially reduce the risks of another pandemic on the scale of the coronavirus outbreak, the researchers estimate, which is just 2% of the estimated $11.5tn costs of Covid-19 to the world economy. Furthermore, the spending on wildlife and forest protection would be almost cancelled out by another benefit of the action: cutting the carbon dioxide emissions driving the climate crisis.
In the report, several estimates of the effectiveness and cost of strategies to reduce tropical deforestation are made. At an annual cost of $9.6 billion, direct forest-protection payments to outcompete deforestation economically could achieve a 40% reduction in areas at highest risk for virus spillover.
A recent report, from the New Nature Economy project, published by the WEF, says: “We are reaching irreversible tipping points for nature and climate. If recovery efforts do not address the looming planetary crises, a critical window of opportunity to avoid their worst impact will be irreversibly lost.”
And yet the cost of action to deal with these impending disasters would be not much more than the recent fiscal spending by governments to save jobs and businesses from the current COVId-19 pandemic.
What is not mentioned in any of these reports is that is the drive for profit under the capitalist mode of production which breaks the necessary connection between human activity and nature. It is not ‘illegal logging, clearing and mining’ or wildlife markets that are the problems. They are the symptoms of the expansion of productive forces under capitalism. Logging and forest burning and clearing are done not only by large corporations, but also by many poor farmers unable to make a living as the land and technology is mainly owned and exploited by big business. It is the very uneven development of capitalist accumulation that is the fundamental cause.
Over 140 years ago, Friedrich Engels noted how the private ownership of the land, the drive for profit and the degradation of nature go hand in hand. “To make earth an object of huckstering — the earth which is our one and all, the first condition of our existence — was the last step towards making oneself an object of huckstering. It was and is to this very day an immorality surpassed only by the immorality of self-alienation. And the original appropriation — the monopolization of the earth by a few, the exclusion of the rest from that which is the condition of their life — yields nothing in immorality to the subsequent huckstering of the earth.” Once the earth becomes commodified by capital, it is subject to just as much exploitation as labour.
Yes, science helps us to understand what is happening. As Engels said, “ with every day that passes we are learning to understand these laws more correctly and getting to know both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. … But the more this happens, the more will men not only feel, but also know, their unity with nature, and thus the more impossible will become the senseless and antinatural idea of a contradiction between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body.”
We need the work of climate change and environmental scientists because “by collecting and analyzing the historical material, we are gradually learning to get a clear view of the indirect, more remote, social effects of our productive activity, and so the possibility is afforded us of mastering and controlling these effects as well.” (Engels).
But the reports of the scientists at the UN meeting and others and making people aware are not enough. The Extinction Rebellion recently issued a statement saying that “we are not a socialist movement. We do not trust any single ideology, we trust the people to find the best future for us all. A banner saying socialism or extinction does not represent us.” Well, maybe Extinction Rebellion does not recognise that the battle to save the planet is connected to replacing the capitalist mode of production. But ER’s view contrasts, it seems, from that of climate activist Greta Thunbergh, who recently said that “The climate and ecological crisis cannot be solved within today’s political and economic systems. That isn’t an opinion. That’s a fact.”
As Engels said: “To carry out this control requires something more than mere knowledge.” Science is not enough. “It requires a complete revolution in our hitherto existing mode of production, and with it of our whole contemporary social order.”
17 thoughts on “Pandemics: prevention before cure”
Either ignorance triumphs or memory fails. Which Engels is cited here? Anti-Duhring? The Housing Question?
What will change since Delivery Hero replaces Wirecard in the DAX? (in German)
Traditional industrial capitalism continues to exist, albeit with low growth and low profit rates. Alongside and below, however, a merciless casino capitalism is developing, whose business model is: Give us your money (by buying shares or bonds or credit), and we (maybe) increase your money without industrial work, simply through trickery and skill!
Great Post Michael. Good hearing you on the session about the BRI and Latin America. Gave me some useful ideas for the left in Brazil. Will chase up the links from the session. Pat
Well done comrade. But this is only one of two aspects. Your article deals very well with the propensity to pandemics driven by capitalist abuse of our planet. It does not deal with the expected depth of these pandemics. As you know I have written extensively on my site that the the severity of a pandemic is due to the nature of the virus or bacteria or even fungus, the underlying health of society, and the capacity of health services.
What is interesting is that the media is grappling with a problem I drew attention to at the onset of this pandemic. Why is it that in Africa, which is poorer, where medical services are patchy, surviving the pandemic is thirty times higher than in the West with all its medical care and supermarkets. Here is an example of this trawling around for an answer. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-africa-53998374 It makes one cringe. The one issue they cannot address is that the west is over-medicated. 91 – 98% of those who died in the west were chronically ill, kept that way by Big Pharma who seek to take over function rather than restore function (cure) in order to sell the same pill month after month and year over year.
But once function is lost, people are very vulnerable to infections because their immune system is disorganised. So add this loss of function to the increased propensity of pandemics, as outlined in your article, and we have the makings of a global catastrophe. We need to shine a light on both aspects, propensity and vulnerability.
And well observed about XR. The magical 6, the unelected and unaccountable leadership of top down XR, are all under the spell of capitalist management protocols which informs their form of organising. Once a revolutionary movement kicks in, I can see issues with XR arising.
Ucanbepolitical, could you expand on your last paragraph re XR’s Magical 6 or point me to sources that do? Thanks Richard
Hi Richard send me your email to firstname.lastname@example.org and I will send you XR constitution including Clause 6 which discuss the limits to local autonomy.
Thanks ucanbpolitical, have mailed you. Address is email@example.com should it not reach you. R
Fyi, spelling corrections needed:
* We need the work of climate change and environments scientists… (should be ‘environmental scientists’)
* But ER’s view contrasts, it seems, from that of climate activist Greta Thubergh… (missing ‘n’ in Greta’s family name).
Comma needed after the word ‘There’ in ‘There delegates will hear that rampant deforestation, uncontrolled expansion of farming…’
Thanks Roger will correct!
Hi Michael, I quite often see ‘slips from haste’ or typos in your blog pieces. Do you like to be made aware of them as a rule?
Richard – every time please. Im getting old
Thanks for this analysis Mr Roberts. Also, do you know when is the release date for your Engels book?
Struggling to finish it!
Mr. Roberts, is there a good email at which to contact you? For a media interview. Thanks so much.
David give me your email and I’ll contact you
my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks so much Mr. Roberts!
A new study making rounds in some leftist spaces, maybe worth a commentary?
Maybe before the end but not before it is too late will mainstream academia finally acknowledge Capitalist imperialism?
“High-income nations (the ‘core’ of the global economic system) depend on resource-intensive industrial technologies and infrastructures whose efficient functioning is contingent on annual net transfers of resources from distant (peripheral) areas (Frey et al., 2018; Jorgenson and Clark, 2009a). Moreover, high-income nations obtain significantly higher revenues for the resources they export than poorer nations, which is mostly due to the positions occupied in global supply chains and their respective roles in the world economy (Piñero et al., 2019; Prell et al., 2014; UNCTAD, 2013). The asymmetry of international trade, i.e. of the net transfers of resource volumes and monetary values, is a crucial determinant of the capacity of individual nations to accumulate capital and technological infrastructure and to thereby achieve economic growth (e.g., Grossman and Helpman, 1991).”