Rachel Carson ; mass murderer

[Walter]

Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring which in turn caused worldwide banning of DDT. Since DDT was banned, millions of Africans have died of malaria because malaria carrying mosquitoes have not been kept in check with the best insecticide ever invneted - DDT.

 

[tamarin]

You snatched that from Crichton's epilogue in State of Fear!

 

[TekJansen]

Yeah, who cares about flipper babies anyway?

 

[Walter]

You snatched that from Crichton's epilogue in State of Fear!

Actually, I got it fron Junkscience, it really doesn't matter where it's from, the problem is that millions die every year because of the DDT ban.

 

[Walter]

Yeah, who cares about flipper babies anyway?

I believe you're thinking of thalidomide.

 

[TenPenny]

Actually, I got it fron Junkscience, it really doesn't matter where it's from, the problem is that millions die every year because of the DDT ban.

Actually, millions die every year because of Malaria.

The DDT ban, in itself, doesn't kill anybody.

It does, however, prevent death in our bird population.

That said, there is a case to be made that DDT could be a useful tool in fighting Malaria, but then again, there's some pesticide that's really handy in China, except when it shows up in wheat gluten and dog food.

 

[hermanntrude]

lifting a ban on DDT would be a stupid thing to do.

 

[#juan]

The Peregrine Falcon just barely made it along with several other birds. We banned DDT just in time. How many birds are now extinct in countries where this junk is still used, or where they carried on using it?

 

[thomaska]

So assuming, just assuming, for the moment that using DDT could save human lives, are there people on this board saying the birds or any other organism that is barely self-aware, are more worthy of life than humans?

 

[#juan]

So assuming, just assuming, for the moment that using DDT could save human lives, are there people on this board saying the birds or any other organism that is barely self-aware, are more worthy of life than humans?

That is a little simplistic. There are already too many humans on this planet. Are you suggesting that we save human lives regardless of the cost in birds or other wildlife?

 

[hermanntrude]

it's not a question of life against life. It's a question of lives versus the extinction of several entire species. It doesnt do the question justice to wonder if the life of the birds is worth more than the life of the humans. It's an unfair simplification. Anyway the DDT would continue to build up in the food chains and kill more than just birds and irreversibly pollute millions of square miles.

 

[Tonington]

Just to further what Hermann said, the DDT building up is also happening in humans. It's especially bad in the circum-polar regions where all of our products seem to end up. The DDT levels there are very close allready to levels which would cause neurological effects in babies.

 

[thomaska]

That is a little simplistic. There are already too many humans on this planet. Are you suggesting that we save human lives regardless of the cost in birds or other wildlife?

Absolutely. I would extiguish entire species. What animal is going to be the next Ghandi, or cure cancer, or AIDS? What are they going to do other than flit here and there and be pretty to look at? I realize we are talking extremes here, but when it comes right down to it, I'm going to choose a human over a non-human, terrestrial, avian, or marine anytime.

I do find it funny that so many people lament the loss of life in wars and other conflict, but have no compunction whatsoever in letting humans suffer in the name of saving an obscure worm, bug, fish, bird or whatever that contributes nothing to earth. Of course there are plenty of humans that contribute nothing themselves, but I suppose that is a different discussion.

I now stand prepared for the excuses on why this moral relativism is to be allowed...

 

[thomaska]

Just to further what Hermann said, the DDT building up is also happening in humans. It's especially bad in the circum-polar regions where all of our products seem to end up. The DDT levels there are very close allready to levels which would cause neurological effects in babies.

I know DDT is bad..it just happened to be the chemical used in this post. I'm not advocating its use. And the title of the thread is as panic-mongering as Rachel Carson's book was, so its apparent that both sides have their extremists.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Actually, I got it fron Junkscience, it really doesn't matter where it's from, the problem is that millions die every year because of the DDT ban.

Yes it does matter where it's from. Would that be Steven J. Molloy's so-called Junk Science Page at http://junkscience.com/ ? That site's not about junk science, it's about anything that doesn't support a political agenda for industries and businesses that don't like regulations that limit their ability to poison and pollute the environment. It's very deceptive, and is itself mostly junk science. Not a credible source. Read this and this.

 

[#juan]

Absolutely. I would extiguish entire species. What animal is going to be the next Ghandi, or cure cancer, or AIDS? What are they going to do other than flit here and there and be pretty to look at? I realize we are talking extremes here, but when it comes right down to it, I'm going to choose a human over a non-human, terrestrial, avian, or marine anytime.

I do find it funny that so many people lament the loss of life in wars and other conflict, but have no compunction whatsoever in letting humans suffer in the name of saving an obscure worm, bug, fish, bird or whatever that contributes nothing to earth. Of course there are plenty of humans that contribute nothing themselves, but I suppose that is a different discussion.

I now stand prepared for the excuses on why this moral relativism is to be allowed...

That post is ridiculous in several ways. DDT was killing birds by causing the egg shells to be soft and weak. It was also suspected of doing neurological damage to humans. DDT is a cumulative poison that is still in the ground where it was used and we won't know the full damage for years.

Extinguish entire species? I wouldn't be a part of that world. Man's best choice is always going to be the one that saves without endandering other animals.

 

[thomaska]

That post is ridiculous in several ways. DDT was killing birds by causing the egg shells to be soft and weak. It was also suspected of doing neurological damage to humans. DDT is a cumulative poison that is still in the ground where it was used and we won't know the full damage for years.

Extinguish entire species? I wouldn't be a part of that world. Man's best choice is always going to be the one that saves without endandering other animals.

Guess you missed the post I made about not using ddt as you flailed away at the keyboard.

So, if you were around in the very distant future, and the last ship was leaving earth for another colony we've made, because the sun was about to engulf earth, and they need some space for the cage holding the last two condors, would you give up your seat? I think not, I think you'd make someone else give up their seat. Because what good is conserving animals if you can't be around afterwards to have the "warm and fuzzy" about it?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

What are they going to do other than flit here and there and be pretty to look at?

That is so deeply ignorant a view of nature and ecology that it's not even worth trying to respond to. It's not even good enough to be called wrong.

...when it comes right down to it, I'm going to choose a human over a non-human, terrestrial, avian, or marine anytime.

False dichotomy; that's not the choice. The choice might be better expressed as being between short-term human comfort and the extinction of other species, and the correct response is to conduct ourselves so that such choices aren't necessary.

 

[#juan]

Guess you missed the post I made about not using ddt as you flailed away at the keyboard.

So, if you were around in the very distant future, and the last ship was leaving earth for another colony we've made, because the sun was about to engulf earth, and they need some space for the cage holding the last two condors, would you give up your seat? I think not, I think you'd make someone else give up their seat. Because what good is conserving animals if you can't be around afterwards to have the "warm and fuzzy" about it?

Not a problem. I would find you, who don't care a whit for any species but your own, and throw you off the ship. Rather throw off ten like you than even one Condor.

 

[tracy]

I know DDT is bad..it just happened to be the chemical used in this post. I'm not advocating its use.

If you're not advocating its use, does it really matter why other people also think it should remain banned?

Personally, I would always choose human over animal life. When I travelled to malaria infested regions I was told to wear light, long clothing, sleep wth mosquito netting and use bug repellent with DEET. Served me well, fortunately.