Is deforestation one of the primary causes of the Ebola outbreak?

Deforestation and Ebola
Personally, I would say so. Forests serve more purposes than just providing oxygen. It acts as a buffer to many things. Yet, we continue to cut them down in the name of "profit."
Look at the massive sandstorms that have recently inflicted China. All a big "mystery," right? Well, it is until you research and find out how much deforestation has been going on there.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Of course, primates such as us are only supposed to travel into the deep forest/jungles along the tree branches. That, and the ridiculous fact of people eating monkeys for food and pleasure. If humans left trees alone, and stopped eating any animals whatsoever (ocean variety included) we'd be back basking in paradise and God wouldn't know what to complain about.

a reply to: Aleister

Yes, some are claiming the eating of monkey meat is also a contributing factor. Even as a meat eater myself, I wouldn't rule it out. We as a global society have become overly consumptious. Sooner or later, such lifestyles will catch up to a populace.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth


A quite logical hypothesis.

Since Ebola appears to be first transmitted from eating bush meat, monkey in particular. This may have some merit.

The infected animals have less of a place to hide and the sick ones, the easiest to catch and eat, especially in deforested areas.

Interesting and quite logical.

In the US we are seeing more and more wild animals (coyotes in particular) in suburbs that were previously forest. So this makes a lot of sense.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Well, when you destroy a natural habitat, the inhabitants just take back what's theirs by taking yours. One day humanity will learn you cannot win a war against nature, but it would seem plenty of suffering is going to come before we finally learn

I can already hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Oh, why is this happening? What have we done wrong to deserve this? Ooooohhhh, ooooohhhh." Well, let's see....

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
I can already hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Oh, why is this happening? What have we done wrong to deserve this? Ooooohhhh, ooooohhhh." Well, let's see....

I don't agree at all that humanity deserves Ebola, I just think the theory is a good one.

For the bat colonies, having Ebola is probably a good defence mechanism. If any critter attempts to treat a bat colony as a food source, it gets killed off. It would explain why monkeys and gorillas get Ebola, but elephants don't, due to their thick skin.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I am not referring to anything in particular, just speaking in general terms. Everything that is going on environmentally, politically, socially, et cetera, we have asked for through our actions or the lack thereof.

Although Ebola was just 'discovered' by western medicine a few decades ago, we have no way of knowing how long it's been sporadically appearing in villages close to the source reservoir (now thought to be Kitum Cave in Africa); last I read about it, they still don't know if it's moving from insects, bush meat or what to humans. We almost got a human outbreak from monkeys being brought in as lab specimens from Madagascar - the Reston outbreak. Turns out humans were immune to that strain and although the monkeyhouse caretakers showed evidence of having been exposed to Reston in their blood, they never got sick. Dodged a big one that time... so the importation of animals from halfway around the world is a big risk also, as usual capitalism and 'modern medicine' takes risks and then tries to clean up the mess afterwards.

It's not 'deforestation' that's the problem - it's that people in Africa don't just walk now, they cross borders and get on planes. A disease that kills quickly in the deep Congo tends to stay in one place, a disease that has a 1-3 week incubation but with exposed individuals being able to get on planes and go halfway around the world is a nightmare waiting to happen.

We have that nightmare now.

We've already spent well over a million dollars on the index case Duncan, and the ripple effect from that has 1000s of people under suspicion of having been exposed - how long do you think an interconnected economic/food system can hold together if there are even a few more cases? Dallas Presbyterian can't even staff its one hospital now, dozens of personnel are quarantined.

While for the most part most people are as clueless as our glorious leaders, the tipping point of panic is not that far away. If it had been controlled from the git-go (the CDC only had 30+ years' notice!) it would have been handled seamlessly. Instead, we have a laughable farce of misinformation and CYA.

No, in this instance it's not deforestation. It's human stupidity in all its glory. I'm just surprised it took this long to happen.

Marburg, which is one of the filoviruses in the ebola family is found in a reservoir of African fruit bats which are found in caves.

The Masai, who have lived the same way for centuries, have stories of a bleeding sickness going back in verbal history.

Deforestation doesn't necessarily expose the virus. It's been around for a long time.
It's more likely that the advent of easy travel is what has allowed the virus to find new victims.

Of course, bats don't need roads to carry disease.

From Wiki - Kitum Cave article RE: source of marburg.
In September 2007, similar expeditions to active mines in Gabon and Uganda found solid evidence of reservoirs of Marburg in cave-dwelling Egyptian fruit bats. The Ugandan mines both had colonies of the same species of African fruit bats that colonize Kitum Cave, suggesting that the long-sought vector at Kitum was indeed the bats and their guano.

a reply to: badgerprints

Yes the virus has been around for quite some time, but not the current strain. The point people are missing is the place where the outbreak originally occurred experienced a massive deforestation. I am not talking about how the disease got spread to other countries. I am talking about where the outbreak initially occurred.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

www.ecology.com...

It is estimated that marine plants produce between 70 and 80 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Nea

As far as it spreading to other countries, that's pretty self explanatory. Governments are allowing infected individuals within their borders

a reply to: onequestion

Again, as I said in my initial post, forests do more than just produce oxygen. They are buffers, so this is rather mute.

originally posted by: signalfire


No, in this instance it's not deforestation. It's human stupidity in all its glory. I'm just surprised it took this long to happen.

Yes, and deforestation is a product of "brilliance?" You kind of reiterated my overall point. When you cut down buffers to disease and other environmental situations, things like outbreaks and sandstorms are going to occur more regularly.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: badgerprints

Yes the virus has been around for quite some time, but not the current strain. The point people are missing is the place where the outbreak originally occurred experienced a massive deforestation. I am not talking about how the disease got spread to other countries. I am talking about where the outbreak initially occurred.

Not only has onequestion posted the importance of forests in producing oxygen and filtering the co2 out of the air, I think you raise quite a valid point. And, perhaps one overlooked. Viruses are born, live (though they are not considered alive, of course) and breed in the forests, in the soil. It doesn't even necessarily have to be about monkey meat. Just clearcutting, and pulling out the wood roils up all kinds of virus. It's then carried out via the wood, with some of the soil, as well. Not only that, the act of clearcutting simply stirs it up…..

Good point.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: badgerprints

Yes the virus has been around for quite some time, but not the current strain. The point people are missing is the place where the outbreak originally occurred experienced a massive deforestation. I am not talking about how the disease got spread to other countries. I am talking about where the outbreak initially occurred.

No argument there.
Exposing the vectors by removing their habitat may have been a factor.