The Perils of Extreme Measures: Lessons from History and Nature

ED: From my inbox – Thanks to Dennis Southwell

In 1858, a prophetess in South Africa had a vision that led to one of the most devastating self-inflicted tragedies in history. She proclaimed that all cattle of her tribe had to be slaughtered, and crops destroyed, as they had been tainted. In return, she believed ancestral spirits would drive out foreign settlers and restore abundance. The result was catastrophic—the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle led to famine, and the population of the region was decimated.

This historical episode serves as a cautionary tale for modern approaches to disease control in both livestock and human populations. Throughout history, various species have faced diseases that threaten their survival, from viruses in horses and sheep to fungal blights in crops. The prevailing bureaucratic response to such threats often mirrors the drastic measures taken in 19th-century South Africa—eradicate entire populations to prevent disease spread.

One contemporary example is the response to bee diseases. In Australia, authorities have resorted to mass extermination of beehives when a single case of disease is detected. This approach, rather than fostering natural resistance, has led to declining honey production and threats to essential pollination. Similarly, outbreaks of avian flu prompt the wholesale culling of poultry flocks, leading to shortages in egg supply.

The mindset of total eradication ignores an essential principle of natural selection: survival of the fittest. In the wild, animals and plants develop resistance over time. Wildlife congregating around scarce water sources are exposed to various pathogens, yet the strongest survive and pass on their immunity. This process of natural herd immunity has long protected species from extinction.

Past generations understood the value of controlled exposure. Before modern vaccines, childhood illnesses such as chickenpox were managed through social exposure to build immunity early in life. By contrast, today’s policies often favour absolute control, driven by an increasing reliance on technology to monitor and manage populations.

On a broader scale, global policies often reflect the same extreme measures under the guise of sustainability and public health. Population control policies have emerged throughout history, from enforced limits on childbirth to restrictions on movement and resource use. The implementation of electronic tracking for livestock, and more recently for people, hints at a future where individuals may face similar constraints on their freedoms.

The drive for extreme interventionist policies in the name of progress raises concerns about unintended consequences. Efforts to curb carbon emissions and control land use, for example, could lead to severe resource shortages, disproportionately affecting those with fewer means. Ambitious environmental and public health goals must be balanced against practical realities to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

The lesson from history is clear: solutions driven by fear and absolute control often create greater suffering than the problems they aim to solve. Sustainable approaches should encourage resilience, adaptation, and balance, rather than destruction and suppression. Learning from nature and past mistakes will be essential in crafting policies that protect both people and the planet without sacrificing freedom and prosperity.