41 ms·

These diseases are mostly consequences of climate changes (including pollutions increases, plastics, ..), so long term, mid term, short term it's always climate

These diseases are mostly consequences of climate changes (including pollutions increases, plastics, ..), so long term, mid term, short term it's always climate change the most important challenge, at global and local scale

justinclift 2y ago
Isn't it more a globalisation problem? ie stuff being transported between countries all the time now, and invading species seem to be good hitchhikers?
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It's both. Globalization causes the outbreak, but climate change makes the world more habitable for these microbiotics.
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
You also can't neatly separate disease issues from climate issues. Insects and diseases are both expanding their ranges in a warmer world.
- 11235813213455 2y ago
  In a normal world with enough biodiversity, it's balanced, some species can die, newer comes. In a human society whole ranges of species are killed because human have such an impact, insect mass is 10x less than 30 years ago, the problems is certainly not too much insects, it's the opposite, their lack of habitat too because we put concrete, roads everywhere, so instead of trying to fight directly and incorrectly these diseases, it's much better to fight the source issue, reducing car traffic, reducing/stopping air traffic, maritim traffic, etc..
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    Uh i get what you are saying but we still have to directly fight disease and it's vectors. Reducing emissions to 0 right now isn't going to work fast enough.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Uh, normal ecosystems are rarely what humans would call balanced for long. There are regular die offs, population booms and busts, plagues, etc, all the time in untouched ecosystems. (Hell, just look at ‘red tides’). Some human impacts make things worse, some make things better - depending on the criteria used. For instance, draining swamps is a classic human behavior that dramatically decreases disease vectors. It also removes habitat for a large swath of animals, including alligators. Overall a good thing, or a bad thing? It’s rare that things like frequency of car or truck traffic has much bearing itself, though making roads definitely can.
    - 11235813213455 2y ago
      > some make things better Do you have examples where human presence help the environment? I don't know some, obviously there are constant changes, normal ecosystems are strong due to their biodiversity, so they recover and adapt quicky. With humans there are holes, more room for strong diseases. It's like on a more local scale the health of an average rich country human, it's very weak and subject to diseases, because of a bad lifestyle. If for a decade this lifestyle is changed with more diversity, interaction with nature, the change is incredible, it's the same at larger scales
      - lazide 2y ago
        You might want to read my comment again.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Not really. There are a huge number of invasive species that are perfectly happy taking over even without climate change. There is nothing magic about the temperature change from the bacterial perspective
- 11235813213455 2y ago
  Because they don't have enough predators, because of humans presence (birds, and more medium size insect eating animals are depleted, because humans prefer dogs, cats, cars, plastic wrapping, and laziness
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    It's not that. Many of these thing have no native predators on the north American continent,and easily out compete local organisms. When it comes to things like soil bacteria and root fungus, it is even more pronounced. You can loose thousands of acres of monoculture tree to pathogens that they have evolutionary exposure to and we're not previously present in the area.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  > There is nothing magic about the temperature change from the bacterial perspective I'm not sure about that, when there are insects carrying these bugs. e.g. Malaria: https://apnews.com/article/malariaclimate-changemosquitos-48166329d2eeb9037b49b381a1bbe598 https://apnews.com/article/malariaclimate-changemosquitos-48... Zika: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33037740/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33037740/ And many, many other such articles.
- vintermann 2y ago
  The first part is true enough, but most bacteria thrive in high temperatures (20-45 degrees C). Most everyone from the north who have gone on summer vacations further south can attest to this...
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
pvaldes 2y ago
Globalisation and lack of care are more probable reasons. Raising the temperature will not made a new species materialize magically from the other coin of planet. Commerce can do and will do it. Fruit sector has been also traditionally vulnerable to sabotage. There are several old examples where a disease was introduced deliberately. About Pongamia trees, they are legumes, so: 1) seeds will be typically toxic without processing. Toxic in a subtle but still dangerous way. 2) will alter the Nitrogen in soil probably (but will be able to grow in poor soils). 3) There is a risk to became invasive, as other legumes like Kudzu proven to be. Specially when planted at scale.

justinclift 2y ago

Isn't it more a globalisation problem? ie stuff being transported between countries all the time now, and invading species seem to be good hitchhikers?

arrosenberg 2y ago
It's both. Globalization causes the outbreak, but climate change makes the world more habitable for these microbiotics.

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago

You also can't neatly separate disease issues from climate issues. Insects and diseases are both expanding their ranges in a warmer world.

11235813213455 2y ago
In a normal world with enough biodiversity, it's balanced, some species can die, newer comes. In a human society whole ranges of species are killed because human have such an impact, insect mass is 10x less than 30 years ago, the problems is certainly not too much insects, it's the opposite, their lack of habitat too because we put concrete, roads everywhere, so instead of trying to fight directly and incorrectly these diseases, it's much better to fight the source issue, reducing car traffic, reducing/stopping air traffic, maritim traffic, etc..
- lawlessone 2y ago
  Uh i get what you are saying but we still have to directly fight disease and it's vectors. Reducing emissions to 0 right now isn't going to work fast enough.
- lazide 2y ago
  Uh, normal ecosystems are rarely what humans would call balanced for long. There are regular die offs, population booms and busts, plagues, etc, all the time in untouched ecosystems. (Hell, just look at ‘red tides’). Some human impacts make things worse, some make things better - depending on the criteria used. For instance, draining swamps is a classic human behavior that dramatically decreases disease vectors. It also removes habitat for a large swath of animals, including alligators. Overall a good thing, or a bad thing? It’s rare that things like frequency of car or truck traffic has much bearing itself, though making roads definitely can.
  - 11235813213455 2y ago
    > some make things better Do you have examples where human presence help the environment? I don't know some, obviously there are constant changes, normal ecosystems are strong due to their biodiversity, so they recover and adapt quicky. With humans there are holes, more room for strong diseases. It's like on a more local scale the health of an average rich country human, it's very weak and subject to diseases, because of a bad lifestyle. If for a decade this lifestyle is changed with more diversity, interaction with nature, the change is incredible, it's the same at larger scales
    - lazide 2y ago
      You might want to read my comment again.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Not really. There are a huge number of invasive species that are perfectly happy taking over even without climate change. There is nothing magic about the temperature change from the bacterial perspective

11235813213455 2y ago
Because they don't have enough predators, because of humans presence (birds, and more medium size insect eating animals are depleted, because humans prefer dogs, cats, cars, plastic wrapping, and laziness
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It's not that. Many of these thing have no native predators on the north American continent,and easily out compete local organisms. When it comes to things like soil bacteria and root fungus, it is even more pronounced. You can loose thousands of acres of monoculture tree to pathogens that they have evolutionary exposure to and we're not previously present in the area.
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
> There is nothing magic about the temperature change from the bacterial perspective I'm not sure about that, when there are insects carrying these bugs. e.g. Malaria: https://apnews.com/article/malariaclimate-changemosquitos-48166329d2eeb9037b49b381a1bbe598 https://apnews.com/article/malariaclimate-changemosquitos-48... Zika: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33037740/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33037740/ And many, many other such articles.
vintermann 2y ago
The first part is true enough, but most bacteria thrive in high temperatures (20-45 degrees C). Most everyone from the north who have gone on summer vacations further south can attest to this...
- s1artibartfast 2y ago

pvaldes 2y ago

Globalisation and lack of care are more probable reasons. Raising the temperature will not made a new species materialize magically from the other coin of planet. Commerce can do and will do it. Fruit sector has been also traditionally vulnerable to sabotage. There are several old examples where a disease was introduced deliberately. About Pongamia trees, they are legumes, so: 1) seeds will be typically toxic without processing. Toxic in a subtle but still dangerous way. 2) will alter the Nitrogen in soil probably (but will be able to grow in poor soils). 3) There is a risk to became invasive, as other legumes like Kudzu proven to be. Specially when planted at scale.