Sir, – The Irish Times published an article by Joe Humphreys which asked "Is nature's mother god sending us a message with Covid-19?" (Unthinkable, June 4th). As professional ecologists, environmentalists and conservation scientists we send a strong rebuke to an argument which uses pseudoscience to advance an agenda that is morally offensive. These claims have no place in a rational discussion of our future.
First, we completely reject any suggestion that a global pandemic which has already taken over 400,000 lives can be presented in any positive light, or trivialised as a “rather odd little bug”. The deaths are a tragedy and will be of no benefit to the environment. Claims that the human population must be reduced come with an implicit assumption about who needs to be controlled, a euphemism which does little to disguise its alarming implications.
Second, the article quotes classicist John Dillon as believing that the Earth is “capable of taking steps, instinctively, to preserve its equilibrium, even at the cost of decimating its most potent species”, drawing attention to the “pullulating masses of Asia and Africa”. This language is offensive.
The problem of global over-consumption is one which necessitates political action, but it is not attributable to the reproduction of fellow human beings in the Global South. Instead, it is we in the industrialised Global North who bear the greatest responsibility. Ironically, it is also we who will likely be the least impacted by both climate change and Covid-19.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
The Gaia theory postulates that the Earth acts as a self-regulating organism. Not only has this idea been thoroughly discredited in the scientific literature, representing at best a minority opinion, but it carries with it the dangerous risk of underplaying the extent to which human actions might either harm planetary systems or be directly responsible for their repercussions. There is no benevolent force trying to tame our impacts, nor can future catastrophes be blamed on her caprice.
Finally, both the moral and pseudo-scientific arguments reported combine to create a false dichotomy between Earth and humanity. Instead, we must move towards a discourse which places people within nature, recognising both our agency and dependence, and seek ways to integrate our activities with natural processes. There need not, and must not, be a conflict. – Yours, etc,
Dr MARKUS EICHHORN,
University College Cork ;
Dr KATE BAKER,
University of Exeter;
Cllr LORNA BOGUE,
Cork City Council;
Prof FRANCIS GILBERT,
University of Nottingham;
Dr HILARY GILBERT,
South Sinai Foundation;
Dr MARK GRIFFITHS,
Newcastle University;
Prof ZENOBIA LEWIS,
University of Liverpool;
Dr TOM PRICE,
University of Liverpool;
Dr DAVID SHUKER,
University of St Andrews,
Scotland.