As I write this essay the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 is ongoing. This pandemic is breaking all of the rules. Among them is the enormous impact the contagion is having by upending national economies and the day-to-day lifestyles of many millions. To a greater extent however, we are being shaken from our oblivious slumber to suddenly find ourselves facing long term consequences of how global functioning and our individual lives are to continue as a result of this catastrophe. Unlike most news events in the modern era that seem to captivate attention dramatically, but briefly, before being swept aside by the next story this pandemic may well be a catalyst for changes in how the world’s citizens perceive priorities and policy strategies for years to come.

What strongly strikes me about the Covid-19 pandemic, aside from the conspicuous fear of contracting the disease, is that this may be an opportunity to jolt us from our provincial and staid world view, immersed as it is in a belief of limited repercussions for our actions, to rather an acceptance of the likelihood that we all share a much larger and more intricately woven realm of causality. Covid-19 serves as an example of a harsh lesson—the proverbial knock upside the head. It is a natural, albeit perverse, environmental phenomenon profoundly impacting our collective environment and forcing us to reorient how we live. We are being summoned to pay attention to something bigger than ourselves. Let us heed the call.

Our lives have always been subjected to the whims of nature. The conventional claim these days among environmental activists and other less strident observers is that we are witnessing, if not participating in, a growing tension between humans and nature. Certainly the data on climate change suggests a transformation is underway in the human-nature relationship. If we accept the premise that humans depend on nature, and given the power of humans to effect environmental change, that nature depends on humans, then the quality of this interaction becomes increasingly significant. As this insidious virus makes clear, mutual co-dependence of humans with their environment is worth a public re-examination and debate about how best to proceed, because something is evidently amiss.

Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a type of Coronavirus that is similar to but characteristically different from flu virus, has been introduced into the human population with devastating consequences. An examination of how and why this has happened will help us to see if indeed this pandemic is part of a larger story about how we humans intercommunicate with the planet. And this story, along with any conclusions we may draw from it, can inform us about what are more sustainable and beneficial practices we could or should pursue moving forward.

As you may remember from a science class somewhere in your past there are tiny life forms known as microbes or microorganisms. Bacteria is the most commonly referred to microbe, but there are others. What all microbes have in common is that they are very small and are all comprised of cells. In fact, some are only one cell in size. Their purpose is to play a critical role in the overall health and richness of a biome and to a larger extent of an ecosystem.

Viruses on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish. Think science fiction alien-like, ahh, thing. They have been creepily described as existing on the margin of living things. They are 1/100th the size of a typical microbe and not comprised of cells. Instead, a virus or virion is a collection of genetic material that encodes proteins. It is encapsulated by a protein seal and exists in one of two ways—either in a dormant state just ready to strike when a vector or host comes along or it becomes “alive” once it infects the hosts’ cells and begins executing its genetic codes, resulting in a rapid reproduction of itself. But of course, despite its treacherous demeanor, we shouldn’t forget that viruses are here for a good reason. By transferring genes they promote genetic diversity, similar to the role played by sexual reproduction. Life on this planet inherently needs adaptability in order to survive and horizontal gene transfer, what viruses do, helps life fulfill this need.

A clear big takeaway from the Covid-19 pandemic is that nature can still pack a wide-ranging punch, even to a population who thinks of itself as seasoned, sophisticated, enlightened, and prepared for anything. It can be useful to remind ourselves that epidemics and pandemics have occurred before and some fairly recently. History is replete with real-life horror stories of communities ranging from towns to civilizations being decimated to one degree or another by such invisible killers.

For example, during the war between Athens and Sparta around 430 BCE the besieged citizens of Athens fortified themselves behind what were called the “long walls”. The overcrowding over time is presumed to have led to a not yet definitively identified pathogen outbreak among the people. Impaired mental functioning, inflamed eyes and organs, bloody throats, and foul breath preceded death. Approximately 100,000 died.

Perhaps the most well know historic pandemic was The Black Death, also remembered as The Plague, which killed nearly half of Europe’s population roughly during the years 1346 and 1353. A now likely extinct bacterium was transmitted from fleas on infected rodents, causing death from Asia to Europe. The disease followed the Silk Road route. Once infected rats who stowed away on merchant vessels to the Mediterranean and Europe offloaded the sickness spread widely.

More recently, the so-called Spanish flu (1918-1920) killed perhaps up to 100 million people around the world. It came in three waves with the second wave in the fall of 1918 being the deadliest. The Asian flu in 1957 and 1958 killed 116,000 Americans. I could go on.

It is a fair hypothesis to state that environmental degradation and mishandling will lead to unintended and severe consequences, such as pandemics. Some would say we’re past hypothesizing as evidenced by measurable and demonstrable adverse ecological conditions of recent times. Given our obvious inherent fragility two questions naturally arise: Should we be interacting with nature in a more intentional and respectful way that ensures or at least improves the chances of better lives for all people? And correspondingly, how do we best mitigate and prepare for environmental disruptions that negatively impact our lives?

We can examine the veracity of the above supposition by seeing if there is a link between environmental deterioration and social welfare. Before proceeding let’s be clear on definitions. Environmental degradation includes: reduction of high quality life sustaining natural resources such as air, water, and soil; destruction of ecosystems; annihilation of habitats; wildlife extinction; pollution or the introduction of deleterious impurities into the environment. Social welfare includes those universal objectives that bring value and excellence to life such as: health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; freedom and equality; literacy and knowledge; or as Thomas Jefferson succinctly put it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a causal link can be established between human activity that leads to environmental decline or disruption and the worsening of social welfare, then we have highlighted an urgency and potential outline for constructive policy making, business practices, and individual behavior going forward.

Now is an optimal time to look at the factual information showing a connection between how we interact with nature and what She does to us as a consequence. As I’ve indicated, Covid-19 should be seen as a wake-up call. It’s impact has been so substantial that there is no question all of us are now paying attention. What is most evident is that a novel virus has arisen and penetrated our world. How exactly this happened is still being examined as of this writing, however epidemiological and genetic evidence points to it being very similar to a bat coronavirus seen in China and that a transfer from bats to intermediary animals and then to humans occurred. A California microbiology professor Kristian Andersen directed a team looking into the virus’s genesis. Their conclusion, “We propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic [animal to human] transfer; and natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. In other words, new pathogens are likely to continuously undergo evolution in the animal world and they can transfer to humans who can serve as adequate hosts.

On the surface zoonotic transfer appears to be a naturally occurring process, albeit a potentially dangerous one. However, as the line between the habitats of wild animals and the human world becomes increasingly porous as a result of greater human encroachment we may be boosting the chances of zoonotic transfer and therefore of the disease risk associated with it. For example, this wet market practice being practiced in some parts of the planet, in which live animal species are interacting unnaturally due to human commerce may be extremely hazardous. Given how localized outbreaks can become global so quickly in the modern era, the danger of such markets should be called into question despite their cultural history and local importance. Developing sound methods of engaging with wild animal populations that reduce instances of harmful zoonotic transmissions would seem to be lesson #1 from this disaster.

Given the severity of the Covid-19 disruption to our lives it’s natural to yearn for a “return to normal”. Let’s unpack what normal was just a few short months ago. Edward Cameron is an Irish climate scientist and strategist living in Vermont. His description of the month before the pandemic started in earnest, also fondly remembered as “normal” times, is useful to contemplate. Commenting on stimulus money being spent by governments in reaction to the public and economic threat of Covid-19 he wrote in May 2020, “There will be a temptation to seek a return to the economy as it was on 31 December 2019. Should we spend these trillions of dollars and succeed in rebuilding the stock market, while still living in a world where more than 3 billion people live on less than US$ 2.50 a day? Should we grow GDP back to pre-crisis levels and still live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty and 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat? Should we put people back to work but still live in a world where 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water—killing an estimated 2,300 people per day? Should we resuscitate the price of oil and commodities and continue our long march towards climate catastrophe? Would we call that success? Would that world be a better world than the one we have now?”

Point taken. Going back to normal has a downside. Of course, we all want the security of living with familiar comforts and predictability. Such consolations provide us with happiness and mental health. Yet, it’s worth keeping in mind as we yearn for familiarity that many benefits come at an ecological price not often considered and these rewards are not as widely shared as we might like to think, thereby creating unresolved social tensions. A critical fact about epidemics historically is how they expose vulnerabilities in what had been normal prior to the scourge. These weaknesses inherent in societies’ living standards and political decisions are where infections take hold and tragedies ensue. Compounding the grief is the realization that while microbes and viruses seek to exploit soft pockets made available by human practices, it is those most at risk from these customs who bear the greatest brunt. We see this being repeated with Covid-19 as the infirm, poor, disadvantaged, and elderly are infected and die at the highest rates.

There are many like Edward Cameron calling for this crisis to be a moment of opportunity for ushering in a better world. Profound social changes have often followed epidemic disruptions. History shows social perspectives are altered impacting religion, economics, politics, and lifestyle habits in the aftermath of large-scaled cataclysms. Sometimes this leads to massive improvements like the loosening of the Roman Church’s dictatorial hold on Europe following the Bubonic Plague or what can result is disastrous such as the rise of the Nazi Party subsequent in part to the Spanish Flu pandemic. It’s naive to think there will not be a momentous reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. The quality of the response depends on the excellence and persuasiveness of thought leaders and political talent.

An emerging line of reasoning hoping to direct the post-pandemic effort connects issues that often are viewed as separate challenges, specifically poverty, wealth inequality, and environmental devastation. Many of us first saw this amalgamated approach with the progressive left’s Green New Deal. The proponents of this process advocate for going really big, by tackling a range of environmental improvement and social welfare concerns, even racial injustice, all at once. The claim is there is an inherent inefficiency in tackling these problems separately or in a siloed manner. For example, if the focus is solely on emissions reduction to reduce global warming at the expense of addressing how agriculture, a leading emitter of particulate emissions, feeds the world’s population, then progress on favorable change is curtailed.

Despite the impassioned argument for going big with a set of multiple reforms simultaneously I’m left questioning the political practicality of initiating too sweeping of a reform movement all at once. An energized opposition is likely to become too much of an impediment, resulting in no substantial change occurring. To be clear, each component of a Green New Deal-type plan—poverty, wealth inequality, equal opportunity, and environmental devastation—seeks to remedy a critically pressing concern. And viewed holistically, a thread can be found linking these issues. However, making legislative progress on any one of these in isolation is a herculean task. Instituting meaningful policy on all of them together in a single comprehensive move seems like a very heavy lift indeed. So, whereas I can appreciate the desire to link environmental and social action at a policy level, the legislative impediments arising from this strategy could very likely weaken and dilute the attempt.

That said, I nevertheless find Cameron’s reference to socio-ecological resilience to be quite informative and promising. To be more specific, I find the term ‘resilience’ appealing, especially in the context of strategic resilience, which I believe is his intention. Progress, innovation, and change don’t happen unless there is an underlying ethic of reflection, preparedness, agility, and risk taking. These are traits that often seem to be in short supply among many groups of people, including those of us in the “first world”. Resilience as aptly described by Cameron pertains to the development of capability “to anticipate, avoid, accommodate, and recover from shocks”. Such thinking is in line with business continuity planning, a most useful and proven approach to executing strategic resilience. Business continuity planning is a systemic process designed to minimize threats, recover from disruptions, and maintain operations with just the right balance of sustainability and adaptability to allow for ongoing functionality. Covid-19 lays bare societies’ agility and viability vulnerabilities worldwide. A more premeditated methodology built around strategic resilience will better prepare us for the dangers and disorders yet to come.

“The main part of preparedness to face these events is that we need as human beings to realize that we’re all in this together, that what affects one person anywhere affects everyone everywhere, that we are therefore inevitably part of a species, and we need to think in that way rather than about divisions of race and ethnicity, economic status, and all the rest of it.”  Frank M. Snowden, a professor emeritus of history and the history of medicine at Yale University. Professor Snowden articulates what is the greatest challenge for us to customize a post-pandemic world. It is not just waging a fight against invading pathogens. It is not immediately halting all ecological ruination. It is not instantly remediating the effects of world poverty and injustice. It is finding a way to work together, to find common ground, to forge partnerships across diverse and opposing ideologies and world views that take us collectively to a place of harmony with nature and universal social well being.

Political divisions will always be with us—and they should be. As much as Washington and Adams warned the young American nation about the drawbacks and pitfalls of partisanship our early countrymen quickly resorted to establishing institutions whereby like-minded people sharing political positions and philosophies could coalesce and compete. Bias and partiality drives politics in every nation in one form or another and varying levels of cooperation and animosity facilitate or diminish government action and decision making in each of these places. Rhetorical conflict can result in progress or not. In the best of situations leadership quality and citizen enlightenment merge to discover solutions that elevate conditions for the greatest number of people. It is not the eradication of disagreement that is needed, it is the crafting of positive options from the scrum of our differences that is called for more than ever in the post-Covid world.

“With all the riots and BS going on, I’m starting to miss the days of the #chinesevirus at least that was laughable nonsense. Where did all that go?” Conservative contributor to Twitter from New Mexico. 

“I’m never wearing a mask…We ruined the economy for nothing.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from Washington, DC.

“Let’s all be honest. Democrat Governors all over the Country let criminals out of prison so they could show up for the riots. The plandemic was the lie they told. These riots were planned right down to the bricks.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from California.

The above quotes were taken from my Twitter feed on June 3, 2020. For the past week the nationwide protests have been occurring following the videotaped murder of an African American man by a white Minneapolis police officer. I could of course add many many more quotes of this type, but I think these make my point. There is a significant segment of America who dismiss and don’t accept the urgency of attacking a viral pandemic raging through their country. Can you imagine these folks rallying to combat climate change?! Whereas the marketplace of competing ideas yields the best solutions, as I’ve noted above, there does come a point where paralysis can set in due to unbridgeable chasms of opinion. We may very well be a this point.

I purposely follow a lot of conservative contributors on Twitter to help give me a sense of what this part of the population is thinking. Granted, Twitter seems to be a platform where MANY extreme views from the right and the left make their instantaneous presence, and despite the velocity of these well caffeinated and provocative conjectures, it may not be any more of an accurate reflection of mainstream viewpoints than any other source. But it is informative nevertheless, to read the thoughts of those who I do not encounter on a daily basis in real life. My grand takeaway is becoming that America is not only profoundly polarized politically, but now appears to be such a large and unwieldy country that to think of coalescing around a national purpose of any sort these days looks to be pathetically unrealistic. It makes thinking we can tackle threats that require national unity, rational problem solving, and concerted effort fanciful. And to be fair, the left can be soundly obnoxious themselves, particularly on the extreme end of the wing. Together our partisan palsy puts all of us at greater risk of mishandling future natural epidemics at a time of accelerated globalized change. This is not smart people.

The fundamental test therefore lies in comprehending, on a near universal scale, the common ground on which we all stand. Doing so involves a mind-shift toward seeing the world through everyone’s similarities, shared purpose, and sense of oneness. Of course there will be differences of opinion and perspective. But where is it written that any nation need cleave itself over these contrasts and disagreements? We should make clear to ourselves that collectively we can achieve greater liberty and prosperity for everyone by adhering to principles of equality in justice, brotherhood, and multicultural acceptance. I’ll drag out a banal, but incisive phrase—there is more that unites us than divides us. Or perhaps, we can simply listen to Desmond Tutu, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

Finding common ground with those with whom we have disagreement does not start with sending links to articles highlighting one’s point of view, or by pointing out “incontrovertible” data, or by quoting experts in science, economics, education, and so forth. It starts with identifying shared values. We all live in communities we want to be prosperous and safe. We all want the best for our kids. We all want the freedom to live life as we choose. We all want to live long comfortable and flourishing lives. At our roots, we are moral, emotional, social, and intuitive, not rational. Reaching each other over how we feel about issues will forge alliances more than trying to get ourselves to think alike. Debate at a cognitive level can often be fruitless outside of a university-like setting. We think what we want to think. But appealing to our widespread sentiments of what feels right provides greater hope we can build coalitions.

Working within the framework of one’s civilization can reveal beneficial touch points in trying to find common humanity. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist in Virginia recognizes care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity as supporting morality, which I’ll define as a culture’s sense of right and wrong. Exploring these areas with the goal of intentionally establishing areas of agreement among disparate people allows us to seek agreements and reach accord. Understanding the moral interests and human nature of others is the place to reach them. Developing trust makes it easier to agree on win/win approaches. When we figure out an improved way of collaboratively merging reason and intuition we will have a greater chance of productively connecting to face incoming environmental and social challenges that we will surely face together in the future, whether we are ready for them or not.

Covid-19 should be seen more as a forewarning than as a one-off unexpected cataclysm. We are being alerted to not only future pandemics, but to a range of calamities that can result from the lack of congruence between humans and nature, including the efficacy of how science and governments respond to these threats. Will we snap back to a normal goaded by pent-up demand as Pilita Clark in the Financial Times describes as spending, “…money we don’t have, on things we don’t need, to create impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about?” or will we be guided by a desire for preventative science-based planning and funding that is cooperatively engaged across disparate agencies, departments, businesses, and even nations? Resisting the fratricidal tendency many people have to express hate, xenophobia, and scapegoating when faced with fear, as these forthcoming scourges will likely engender, could be our biggest obstacle to the necessary teamwork such times will call for. If so, this will be enormously difficult.

All times are a stress test of one sort or another each with their own zeitgeist of idiosyncratic incitements that make or break the people of their age. The grand conflict of our epoch is integrally enmeshed in the quality of the relationship between the earth’s dominant life form and their planet. We have had a shot fired over our bow. The time for awareness and resolve is on. How we engage this struggle will determine the kind of world we bestow upon or deprive from future generations. Whatever turns out to be our legacy we cannot say we weren’t warned.