> Settle down. ... It's a virus and our medical system has limits. Shit happens. We react and (hopefully) come out well on the other side.
so your response is to just throw our hands up in the air and say "shit happens"? how is that productive in any way? that's exactly how we got here.
this article is a good read: http://nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the-p...
just because there are viruses existing in the world doesn't mean we should be cavalier with them. over-population and our encroachment on wildlife is what's leading to the increasing rate of transfers of zoonotic viruses.
> You say overpopulation is a problem? Fine. Give me a practical and ethical solution.
> You say encroachment on wildlife? Ok, fine. Please provide a practical and ethical solution.
you seem to imply that there is literally no point in talking about these problems? as if we couldn't possibly come up with practical and ethical solutions? it isn't an argument to say "unless you have a detailed solution at this moment then the problem isn't a problem". a problem without a solution is still a problem. your argument is petulant.
> But suggesting that disease as a result of overpopulation is our fault without offering a practical solution adds nothing to the dialog.
it's not my suggestion. it's experts' conclusions based strongly upon evidence. it does further the dialog. viruses of this nature, and other issues facing humanity, have happened and will continue to happen at increasing rates. there is no need to have such a huge human population other than narcissism and selfishness. there is no need to eat certain animals. there are not a lot of reasons for much of the stuff we do other than we do it because we can. (however, a lot of interactions with animals with increase naturally simply due to our expansion into their habitat.)
how in the world does it further the dialog to say shit happens and we live on this planet and do our best?