It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ebola Has Wiped Out 1/3 Of The World’s Great Apes

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I admit that I hadn't heard of this before. It's startling to discover how vulnerable these great apes are (95%-77% death rate) and how, even with a new feasible vaccine, international politics are in the way of saving these unfortunate creatures.

In human terms, this would be the equivalent of Ebola wiping out almost 2.3 BILLION.


Ebola poses the greatest threat to the survival of our nearest cousins — gorillas and chimps, a third of which have died from the deadly virus since the 1990s.

The disease is even deadlier for the great apes than it is for humans, according to the report in The Conversation, a nonprofit media outlet.


Mortality rates for gorillas are about 95 percent and 77 percent for chimpanzees. For humans, it is about 50 percent.
Meera Inglis, a doctoral candidate in conservation policy at the University of Sheffield, wrote that as with humans, deaths among the apes come in epidemics.

An outbreak in 1995 killed more than 90 percent of gorillas in a park in Gabon. In 2002-03, another outbreak killed about 5,000 gorillas in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
There are only about 100,000 gorillas left in the wild, Inglis reported.

A safe and effective vaccine has already been developed for apes, she wrote, but “trials have not involved ‘challenging’ the vaccinated chimps with the live virus.”

“Across much of Europe, medical research on great apes is either banned or highly restricted because of their cognitive similarity to humans,” she wrote. “The question is whether or not we should make an exception in this case.”

nypost.com...
edit on 21-1-2015 by IAMTAT because: comment added




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   


Probably says something bad about me, but this bothers me more than the outbreak among humans.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

If Ebola was to wipe out one third of our population it would be a blessing in disguise. Certainly give us and mother Earth some breathing space(for a few century's). Shame about the great apes all the same considering there pretty much in tune with nature and there environment.
edit on 21-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: IAMTAT

If Ebola was to wipe out one third of our population it would be a blessing in disguise. Certainly give us and mother Earth some breathing space(for a few century's). Shame about the great apes all the same considering there pretty much in tune with nature and there environment.


For a few centuries?
WW1 and WW2 has barely bought us 1 century, let alone a few.
The last century was the most bloody in human history. But yet here we are being told again that there are too many of us.
Bull#, there are too few with too much, thats what the problem is.

As for the apes, that is truly sad. Because of the lack of profit in saving them, I fear they are doomed.

Good old money, its the last profit.
edit on 20151America/Chicago01pm1pmWed, 21 Jan 2015 17:57:32 -06000115 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

I certainly agree there are too few with too much but there are also far to many of us. Lets face it we are an enormous strain on our Earth's bio sphere given our numbers alone never mind the things we get up to collectivity.

As a species we simply make a mess, refuse to clean up after ourselves or take responsibility for our actions.
edit on 21-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Well, at this point, it's human beings who are the only ones capable of saving these great apes...as well as capable of stopping Ebola. Humans didn't create Ebola, but humans can defeat it.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Damn. Imagine how many species might be completely extinct because of things like this. I'm not a biologist, so I won't pretend I understand what a terrible loss this means, but I know enough to understand that this is a terrible loss.




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Too bad their population was so thin to start with. Had they had a few more in numbers, there could always be those that had a natural resistance, would subsequently succeed/survive and breed their resistant genetics into the next generations. I suspect their numbers are so ridiculously low that mutations or other mechanisms of natural selection are highly unlikely and don't have a chance in this case.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Humanity may not even be capable of saving ourselves should we keep on down the path we seem to have chosen.

As to curing Ebola, why would they do that? Same as Cancer, A.I.D.S and all the other supposed incurable degenerative diseases doing the rounds. There is simply more money to be had through palliative care and/or drugs that retard rather than prevent or even cure the ailments in question.

I'm not saying we are incapable of curing Ebola in apes or humans for that matter, i'm just saying any cure or immunisation procedures certainly will not be made available to the masses.
edit on 22-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well this is horrible news. But horribleness aside, what it tells me is that these chimps and gorillas live in such close contact with their tribes that when one gets into the end-stage contagious period, where the only way to catch Ebola is from contact with bodily fluids, the apes must gather around and try to nurse their friend or family member. And when they die the other apes probably prod or shake the body trying to revive them. Their own humanity is killing them.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well this is horrible news. But horribleness aside, what it tells me is that these chimps and gorillas live in such close contact with their tribes that when one gets into the end-stage contagious period, where the only way to catch Ebola is from contact with bodily fluids, the apes must gather around and try to nurse their friend or family member. And when they die the other apes probably prod or shake the body trying to revive them. Their own humanity is killing them.



That's a thoughtful point, but IMO, in this case, it's their lack of ability to understand the nature of the Ebola threat which poses their greatest limitation to limit Ebola's spread among them.
Sadly, it appears that great apes, as intelligent as they may be, still cannot comprehend virus'.
Actually, it's not unlike humans thousands of years ago, not even able to imagine the existence of microscopic killer lifeforms...and, hence, unable to avoid mass devastation of the human population.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

There lack of ability to understand the nature of the threat seems to be remarkable synonymous with Humanity's inability to comprehend the same.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
This is horrible. Like another poster, this seems to upset me more than how it affects humans.
I hold a deep reverence for the gorillas (especially those in Virunga). My "plan" when I was younger was to go there and study the great apes. Life happened, and I haven't made it it there. I hope one day, if they are still there, to make it to see them in their natural habitat.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
that was the conclusion one of the researchers published, in reality it might be much much less than that percentage, sad and disturbing none the less ..



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: chelsdh

Not to trying to be rude but i would get you skates on regarding any study or active participation with said apes because given the amount of animals that are becoming extinct due to humanity's escapades and misadventure, plus other factors as well, they may very well have gone the way of the Dodo in 15-20 years time. Only place they may remain is in a Zoo or habitat of our creation.

edit on 22-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You're not being rude, you are being realistic. I've known for years that the odds of the Mountain Gorilla surviving long term are low.... But one can hope. Dian Fossey pondered whether the Mt gorilla would perish in the same century it was discovered.... They didn't, but that's only a momentary triumph.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OneManArmy

I certainly agree there are too few with too much but there are also far to many of us. Lets face it we are an enormous strain on our Earth's bio sphere given our numbers alone never mind the things we get up to collectivity.

As a species we simply make a mess, refuse to clean up after ourselves or take responsibility for our actions.


That simply isnt true, we are packed into cities, anyone living in a city will perceive the world as "Over Populated".
It is corporate greed that drives the destruction of the earth, it is capitalisms unsustainable consumerism that drives the desire for unneccessary tokens of "status".

There is plenty of room in this world and the vatican could end world poverty tomorrow, but they dont.
The 1% will have half of all the worlds wealth by next year, and a large proportion of that 1% is in the hands of the 0.1%.

And you think over population is the problem?
So instead of addressing that disgusting imbalance of global wealth, we start eradicating ourselves from the face of the planet?
WOW. Turkeys really do vote for Christmas.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OneManArmy

Its not just our numbers regarding our population centres, its the fact that we have a finite amount of resources, clean water being the major concern.

People have always crowded together for comfort and safety that's why most of us live in city's or towns. The industrial revolution and continued industrial evolution is also a significant factor regarding the vast majority of our citizenry choosing to dwell in city's these days.

We also have to consider the number of new mouths to feed with farmland becoming less fertile as the days go by and Humanity's numbers increasing at a near exponential rate its simply unsustainable.

As to there being plenty of room on our world consider that 2/3rds is covered in water. Then we have the fact that a significant proportion of our landmasses contain mountainous and/or vast areas of desert not to mention flood plains and jungle. What we are left with really cannot support 7.2 billion plus individual souls that are all competing for the same air, food, water and other resources.

Granted its the 1%s fault but overpopulation will destroy our society long before the Illuminati ever do.

"So instead of addressing that disgusting imbalance of global wealth, we start eradicating ourselves from the face of the planet?"

Where have i suggested eradicating anyone? Nature will do that for us should our boots get any bigger. I really dont think you are able to see the forest for the trees regarding the real issues we face as a species.

Yes we need to address the distribution of wealth amongst our populations but what's the point of doing so if overpopulation, famine, war and pestilence destroys us in the process of creating a modern day utopia where everyone is equal? Which is also i might add an impossibility given our current numbers never mind future projections.

The real ticket that could quite possibly ensure not only our own survival but also the Earth's would be to get a significant proportion of our race off this planet and on to greener pastures so to speck. Could start by building orbital habitats and industrial facility's allowing our Earth to recover from the century's of human deprivation we have unleashed upon her. Then possibly colonise Mars or another world around another star.

Non of which we could possibly accomplish or achieve if we ever return to a purely agrarian society which we will need to do should our numbers increase much further. Kind of a catch 22 situation if ever there was one.
edit on 22-1-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20

log in

join