Our connected world means that diseases spread quicker than it would have decades ago.
It was again Ronald Ross who came up with the idea of what we call “dependent happenings.” What happens to you depends on what happens to other people. Obviously, biological contagion is a good example of this, but we do see these knock-on effects happening in other ways, for example the knock-on effect on economies when you have a financial crisis, and even in a biological outbreak like COVID-19. When you have that connectivity, what happens in a local area of China can quickly influence what happens in other countries. That is really a transition that we’ve had in the last decade or two. Even if you look at flight volumes out of China since SARS back in 2003, it’s about a three-fold increase. Potentially, what would have been a very small outbreak a few decades ago that wouldn’t have affected other places, now [affects] what happens elsewhere, such as the UK, the U.S., or India.
Source : Countries with outbreaks reporting less than 20% of symptomatic cases, says U.K. epidemiologist Adam Kucharsk, MArch 28, 2020, TheHindu
But we can easily extend this hypothesis [that nature has beneficial effects on the physical, cognitive and emotional well-being of individuals] to the conservation of biodiversity. [Ecologists] refer to the extinction of the experience of nature, which they have mainly applied in urban areas. The idea is as follows: from generation to generation, young people live less and less in contact with nature (because there are fewer of them and because their lifestyles limit such contact), at the very moment they are building their identity. The part of their identity that integrates their intimate relationships with their natural environment would therefore diminish from generation to generation. Not because of a lack of education, but mainly because of a decline in opportunities and desires to experience nature without constraint, freely and in their own personal way.
The consequences of this decrease appear in adulthood: with a weaker environmental identity, they are less in demand for nature in their daily lives, they integrate it less in their actions. (...) But if we do not collectively take biodiversity into consideration in our lifestyles, then we will suffer.
Source : Mobilizing against the extinction of nature experience (french), july 2015, Espaces naturels
It was the quietness of life in a medieval English village that would most strike a visitor from today—no planes overhead, no swish or rumble from traffic. Stop reading this book a minute. Can you hear something? Some machine turning? A waterpipe running? A distant radio or a pneumatic drill digging up the road? Of all the varieties of modern pollution, noise is the most insidious.
Yet in the year 1000 the hedgerows actually had a sound. You could hear baby birds chirping in their nests, and the only mechanical noise you would hear came from the wheezing of the blacksmith’s bellows. In some villages you might have heard the bell in the church tower, or the creaking and clunking of the wooden cogs in one of the water-mills that had been constructed in the last 200 years, and if you lived near one of England’s dozen or so cathedrals, you would have heard the heavy metal cascadings of sound from the copper windpipes of one of the recently imported church organs. But that was all. As bees buzzed and wood pigeons cooed, you could listen to God’s creation and take pleasure in its subtle variety.
The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.