Silent Spring Into An Early Grave: Anti-DDT Fairy Rachel Carson Cost Millions Of People Their Lives
This is an example of pathological altruism -- an intention to help that actually hurts.
Paul Offit writes at The Daily Beast:
In May 1963, Rachel Carson appeared before the Department of Commerce and asked for a "Pesticide Commission" to regulate the untethered use of DDT. Ten years later, Carson's "Pesticide Commission" became the Environmental Protection Agency, which immediately banned DDT. Following America's lead, support for international use of DDT quickly dried up.
Although DDT soon became synonymous with poison, the pesticide was an effective weapon in the fight against an infection that has killed--and continues to kill--more people than any other: malaria. By 1960, due largely to DDT, malaria had been eliminated from eleven countries, including the United States. As malaria rates went down, life expectancies went up; as did crop production, land values, and relative wealth. Probably no country benefited from DDT more than Nepal, where spraying began in 1960. At the time, more than two million Nepalese, mostly children, suffered from malaria. By 1968, the number was reduced to 2,500; and life expectancy increased from 28 to 42 years.After DDT was banned, malaria reemerged across the globe:
• In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.• In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.
• In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320.
Since the mid 1970s, when DDT was eliminated from global eradication efforts, tens of millions of people have died from malaria unnecessarily: most have been children less than five years old. While it was reasonable to have banned DDT for agricultural use, it was unreasonable to have eliminated it from public health use.
...In 2006, the World Health Organization reinstated DDT as part of its effort to eradicate malaria. But not before millions of people had died needlessly from the disease.
To often, we leap to DO SOMETHING -- without fully considering the unintended consequences. This is an example of how horrifically that can turn out.
Forbes ran a similar article by Henry Miller in 2012 about Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies.
How's that consensus of scientists working out for you?
Conan the Grammarain at February 4, 2017 7:42 AM
Mass human death isn't a bug of environmentalism, it's a feature. It's the true end goal.
Momof4 at February 4, 2017 11:19 AM
As you know, science and human behavior are nuanced and complex. There are some rebuttals to the 'Rachel Carson as mass murderer' theory. Summarized nicely here:
yale.edu/features/rachel_carsons_critics_keep_on_but_she_told_truth_about_ddt
They include lack of follow-through on eradication efforts. Even those still using DDT. And of course mosquitoes had begun to develop resistance to DDT by the late '50s.
The U.S. didn't have a big malaria problem. We banned it to protect our raptor populations. (Under the Nixon administration if you have to inject a political element)
Canvasack at February 4, 2017 11:33 AM
Sorry. Forgot the http part.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/rachel_carsons_critics_keep_on_but_she_told_truth_about_ddt
Canvasback at February 4, 2017 11:43 AM
Mass human death isn't a bug of environmentalism, it's a feature. It's the true end goal.
_____________________________________
Sam Harris would probably say the same thing about more than one religion - which is typically pro-natalist.
Harris: "...It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be GLORIOUS. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religion dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency."
lenona at February 4, 2017 11:43 AM
> purely on the basis of religion dogma
That's kinda Amy-esque... Nobody has any motive or character problem independent of their religious beliefs. As if human nature is never a problem, just ("purely") those stanky churches.
Crid at February 4, 2017 5:30 PM
I'm unable to detect an intention to help.
Lastango at February 4, 2017 5:57 PM
Why yes. The world would be unicorns and rainbows without religion getting in the way with, gasp, dogma.
Conan the Grammarian at February 4, 2017 6:12 PM
As noted above, the idea that DDT ban caused malaria to resurge is a bit mythical. Mosquitos were already showing resistance by then. And recent developments are driving malaria rates down again.
Even that were not the case, science is based on what we can measure. According to the data we had at the time, DDT was dangerous and losing its effectiveness. Carson may have been wrong but she was not evil.
Mike at February 4, 2017 6:16 PM
As noted above, the idea that DDT ban caused malaria to resurge is a bit mythical. Mosquitos were already showing resistance by then. And recent developments are driving malaria rates down again.
Even that were not the case, science is based on what we can measure. According to the data we had at the time, DDT was dangerous and losing its effectiveness. Carson may have been wrong but she was not evil.
Mike at February 4, 2017 6:16 PM
That is always the justification isnt it?
The problem is, that these hysterical overreactions almost always lead to something being quickly pulled of the market and the replacement is almost always less effective, and worse for the environment.
Malaria is a deadly debilitating disease. My father acquired it in the South Pacific. It isnt something I would wish on anyone.
Easy to be glib about it when you or your loved ones dont have it.
Isab at February 5, 2017 4:09 AM
Malaria took sensation in three fingertips after a Y2K scuba trip to PNG in Y2k. Being a "rich" American with a good diet and clean sheets, the larger health outcome was never in doubt, so I just went to work as the illness raged... But the pain is something never to be forgotten. It was easy to imagine being a farmer of taro root in some island village and using the use of a limb.
Crid at February 5, 2017 9:14 PM
A certain well-loved writer from the 19th century caught malaria as a child - and I suspect that made her somewhat infertile as an adult. (It would explain why, in her 64 years of marriage, she was apparently pregnant only twice, both times before age 23 - and the first time she got pregnant was six months after the wedding. But then, she also suffered from malnutrition at least once as a teen.)
lenona at February 6, 2017 10:39 AM
Leave a comment