1. As an ecological expert, what do you think is the cause of the current pandemic?

(00:13 – 01:27)

Many people describe the current situation using the term “nature’s counterattack.” I disagree. Nature is unable to plan anything, as if actor Song Kang-ho of “Parasite,” says, “You have a plan.”“I really didn’t like him. I want to make a counterattack this time.” It isn’t anything like that at all. This is purely our doing, and we are now being punished for that. We are just reaping what we sowed, It’s not someone’s counterattack on us or God’s cursing us. Thoroughly, this is the result of how we have handled the natural ecosystem. In a sense, I think this is an opportunity for everyone to reflect on how lax we have been.

Who would have an answer to that? I really hope it ends soon, but it doesn’t appear to be that easy. This is because the way that many people are dealing with the situation is no different from what we have dealt with pests. Based on my observation, there are some terms we use when controlling pests. Terms such as to “eradicate,” “exterminate,” or “put an end” have been used constantly. Nonetheless, we’re not farming in the absence of any pests. In a sense, the problem has gotten even worse. Looking back on human history against the virus, there’s only one really exterminated virus by human effort: smallpox. There is no other example of success. In the 21st century, we have already experienced SARS, MERS, Ebola, Zika, H1N1 flu, and HIV, all of which still exist. It’s just that they have been settled enough for us to survive to a certain extent.

In the case of HIV, for example, NBA basketball star Magic Johnson got infected. Luckily, he found a really good cure that fits to his physical constitution, and now he’s doing okay. What this means is that we’ve been dealing with pests and pathogens with a kind of military action. Military actions result in attacks, extermination, and devastation. In fact, however, we need a police action, not a military action. It’s all about maintaining order. In a sense, the Korean disease prevention authorities seem to have the goal of destroying the last single COVID-19 virus on the Korean Peninsula. But it’s impossible. I think it’ll take a long time if we set such a goal. We have no choice but to stabilize it to the degree that we can handle it and continue our lives as usual.

To briefly explain it, a cold we commonly catch is also caused due to a coronavirus. When a cold were to attack humanity for the first time, although we can’t actually go back to the time, if you imagine it, it appears that so many people died as well. We would have been completely defenseless against the virus as we are now. Pathogens, like viruses and bacteria, always have two properties: propagation and deadliness. But these two properties can’t go together. If a pathogen is fatal, it can’t spread because it would just lie in bed with the person it already infected. It is destined to live and die with him, and it can’t cross over to another person. In most cases, a very deadly virus prevails by the time it starts to spread.

But after a while, the most toxic one usually stops spreading and it slowly disappears after killing many people. Viral mutations evolve as they compete among themselves. Most of those that survive are not toxic. People walk around without knowing that they are infected and have spread the virus to others repeatedly. There are cases of unidentified cause of infection or infection without any symptoms. We can’t feel them because the virus has become less toxic. Probably, a cold killed a lot of people at first, and then it started living with us because it has variations enough for us to just live with it.

After a long time, COVID-19 will likely become a cold-like coronavirus that some of us will get sick and recovered from. Of course, a bad cold could already cause complications, pneumonia, etc., and some will die from them. But most of the people easily recover and get back to work. Someday, COVID-19 will likely be in that state.



3. The next question was to ask the fundamental solution to the current pandemic. Based on what you have just said, it’s more about controlling it and living with it than about resolving it.

(07:22 – 10:57)

I could give you a more specific idea about that. Currently, many people are waiting for the vaccine to be developed. In fact, we’ve been through the SARS, MERS, Zika, Ebola, H1N1 flu, and HIV since the beginning of the 21st century. None of the vaccines for the viruses I listed have been developed. It is not because we didn’t try, but because vaccines are difficult to make.It is difficult to make, and even if you succeed and ask people to get it, they wouldn’t just volunteer or compete to get it. Because it has to be safe and effective, it takes a long time to secure the two requirements. I mean, if we wait too long for the vaccine, we may face a greater failure. That is why I suggest that we have better vaccines: a behavioral vaccine and an ecological vaccine.

The Korean people did a great job with the behavioral vaccine. We washed ours hands well, put on a mask, and keep social distancing. I mean that it is an act of defense we can take. But the reason I call it a vaccine is because we use it as a rule of disease prevention. But many Western people refuse to wear masks. There are many of them who don’t wear masks, calling for liberty or rights. However, Koreans wear masks well. Vaccines take effect when at least 80 percent of the population gets it. Mass immunization can’t be achieved if a small number of people get it. In that sense, nearly 100 percent of South Koreans have been vaccinated. I greatly appreciate it.

In fact, a better, more fundamental one is an ecological vaccine. If we don’t damage nature this way, if we live with respect to nature, if nature exists as it is and we exist as we are, then the virus in nature will not come to us. I talked about it in 2000 but it wasn’t the first time in human history. You have heard of “natural conservation” more than enough but you have not followed it. I only turned that term into an ecological vaccine. The reason is because, as earlier mentioned, a vaccine needs everyone’s participation. So, don’t let people like me talk about protecting nature. If 7.8 billion people in the world decide to protect nature and put it into practice, no more dreadful pandemic will happen again. Is it that difficult to practice? These days, I’ve been asking this questions. It is now time to redefine our relationship with nature.



4. You mentioned in one of your books that we have to move away from Homo sapiens to Homo symbious. What would be the insight we could learn from the Homo symbious theory in the current pandemic crisis?

(11:16 – 15:48)

In a sense, we learn this lesson from a very expensive experience. I wonder if we barely start to learn only after so many people died and the economy hit the bottom. Still, I’m very hopeful and grateful. Many people used to criticize ecologists like me and said, “Does the environment feed us? You just do it when you are well fed. There’s not enough food to eat right now, and how can we protect the environment?” These people started to say, “We can’t do this anymore. Continuing this, what if we face the same thing again and again? Should we not touch nature any more?”

It is such a grateful change. We got to the point where so many people are aware of the situation. Not just me but also Dr. Jane Goodall, Sir David Attenborough, and many other ecologies have worked hard but been unsuccessful. But an invisible virus seems to be teaching innumerable people an important lesson this time. In fact, it has been over 20 years since I talked about Homo symbious. In 1999, a big conference was held in Japan. It was a two-day conference hosted by former Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida Mori. The conference invited representatives from neighboring countries and Europe to prepare for a new millennium. It was in 1999 when a century and a millenium were about to end. I said in the conference that humans have been through many turns such as a linguistic turn and a cultural turn. But at the moment, I said, “People predict so many different turns such as an information turn and a technological turn. But what would be the point of all that?”

In the 21st century, I pointed out exactly three things. I said, “Climate change, the depletion of biodiversity, and the pandemic will threaten the existence of our human race. Would we even have time to talk about them? I think the only turn left for us is to choose an ecological turn. Unless we think about living with nature, and unless we change ourselves, we won’t be able to survive.” I also urged them to stop calling ourselves “Homo sapiens,” a self-praise for being wise. I ended my speech by suggesting a reform of ourselves into “Homo symbious,” meaning that we should share the Earth with other living things.

That evening, Prime Minister Mori gave a toast and said, “Let’s make an ecological turn and become Homo symbious.” I was very encouraged. For the past 20 years, I’ve talked about it continuously. I’m afraid it might sound like I’ve been waiting for the pandemic, but I don’t think that message will ever be as meaningful as it is currently. It is now time for us to change our attitude towards nature and our philosophy of thinking about nature.