Pandemics seem to be one of Mother Nature’s favorite strategies for population control (with war coming in a close second?). Granted that Earth could support several times its current people load if we eliminated inefficient nutritional programs (all meat animals, dairy, poultry, etc.) and went to a vegan diet, but is a world population from 10 billion to 20 billion or more humans compatible with a desirable lifestyle? Think global warming, inadequate recreational facilities, air pollution, road rage from congested highways, etc. We seem concerned about the extinction of nonhuman species like the spotted owl and all kinds of toads, but not about the impact of us humans leading to these extinctions. A coalition of foundations has pledged to eliminate a million deaths a year of children from malaria in Africa. Sounds wonderful but does Africa really need a million more mouths to feed every year? What does it mean to be an enlightened humanitarian? Puzzling question. On our present course it seems certain that global warming will produce widespread effects that will not, in general, be desirable. But are we also setting ourselves up for a global pandemic that will prune the population to where it might have been in the first place if we had listened to those who have been warning us for some decades and are now entitled to say, “I told you so.”? Or will medical science give us enough vaccines and new antibiotics to prevent diseases from whatever bugs come along so that we can all live cosily in a global megalopolis. Given our penchant for not doing anything until it is too late, I suspect that our experiment will continue but with Mother Nature at the controls — population controls, that is. Keep your fingers crossed and your seat belt fastened. It may be a bumpy ride. Gordon Short, MD, a board-certified pathologist, is the founder of Brevis Corporation.
|