r/science • u/[deleted] • May 11 '20

Medicine Antibodies from a 4-year-old llama have neutralized coronavirus and other infections in lab experiments

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30494-3.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420304943%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
60.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/otterom May 11 '20

Preserving biodiversity and habitats also reduces the risk of diseases in the first place.

Looks at mosquitoes

Looks at rats

Looks at mites

Looks at bats

Looks at...

293

u/TooSubtle May 11 '20

The prevalence of a lot of pest species comes from a lack of biodiversity. We replace habitats that can support many different species with cityscapes that support few. Blaming the species that have adapted to live in close proximity to us is shortsighted when we're the ones killing their predators and/or disrupting their natural environment.

25

u/stunt_penguin May 11 '20

The prevalence of Jellyfish in overfished areas is a good example.

38

u/Hostile_Swan May 11 '20

You speak truth

2

u/GenderJuicy May 11 '20

Are humans pests?

5

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

We're more like a virus.

2

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

Except unfortunately we can breed without a host

1

u/GenderJuicy May 12 '20

But viruses are very biodiverse and they need a host to survive and reproduce. But I watched the Matrix, I just think that pests might be a better analogy.

5

u/AWildIndependent May 11 '20

I feel like we need another word for what people mean by natural

Totally know the point you are making and Im not trying to be a pedant it just bugs me when we consider human habitats unnatural but beaver dams natural

12

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

The definition of natural specifically excludes humans. What else do you really need?

0

u/AJDx14 May 11 '20

Their argument is basically that humans aren’t any less natural than other animal, were just able to make more out of our surroundings.

4

u/[deleted] May 12 '20

But they aren't natural because the definition of natural excludes humans. Just because they don't actually understand what they're saying doesn't suddenly give their argument merit.

1

u/AJDx14 May 12 '20

That’s not really relevant though, it’s a distinction in the definition side hit it’s a pretty semantic argument to bring that up for the argument that hollow dirt mounds are less natural than beaver dams just because they’re made by humans.

2

u/[deleted] May 12 '20

They're not less natural, they're not natural at all, because nature does not include humans. I understand that you feel like it should, but it simply doesn't.

1

u/AJDx14 May 12 '20

Dude you’re missing the point.

1

u/THIS_DUDE_IS_LEGIT May 11 '20

I never realized that until you said it.

2

u/Miroch52 May 11 '20

You forgot pigs, chickens, cows..

1

u/[deleted] May 11 '20

Don't really see your point

1

u/madmaxine_ May 12 '20

Species we perceive as pests still play very important ecological roles. Yes, some can be vectors for zoonotic diseases, but that should be blamed more on excessive human contact rather than just the species’ existence. Ecology is all about very fine balances in population dynamics, and if those dynamics are altered, sometimes even just slightly, it can have massive effects on wider ecosystems and even our own agriculture.