Andrey (azangru) wrote,

I think it was Douglas Murray who said in February or March how he had been noticing that various columnists had been coopting the coronavirus to advance their favorite agenda.

I don't believe I've seen any examples of this until today, on a UN-affiliated site about biodiversity:

"The emergence of COVID-19 has underscored the fact that, when we destroy biodiversity, we destroy the system that supports human life. By upsetting the delicate balance of nature, we have created ideal conditions for pathogens–including coronaviruses–to spread," it says.


I am not sure what to make of this passage. I thought, Covid was good for biodiversity. Starting with the obvious fact that it's a new virus, so an enrichment of the viral gene pool; and moving on to how the ensuing lockdown has reduced emissions and contributed to the temporary expansion of wildlife. What is this paragraph saying, exactly? Unless it's arguing — very indirectly — what we know to be self-evident, i.e. that international travel or large cities contribute to the spread of infections, I don't know how to interpret it. But then, what are they suggesting exactly? Protecting Amazon rainforests, with all their biodiversity, will not make a dent in infection rates in the cities.

  • (no subject)

    I'm listening to The Ickabog, by J.K. Rowling and read, with much gusto, by Stephen Fry. What started like a nice children's tale not dissimilar from…

  • (no subject)

    From today's questions to the Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, today, millions of Uyghur people in China live in fear under a cruel regime. The BBC,…

  • (no subject)

    There's a strange tendency out there for tech podcasters not to be good programmers themselves. There are exceptions, of course. The googlers at…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.