Originally Posted by baby boo
It comes down to a risk/benefit analysis. I have shown you were curtainling DDT use has cost literally millions of lives in Africa. You come back with a theoretical argument that we don't know what its cumulative effects are. The burden of proof is on you to show how its use would likewise cost the lives of millions of people.
Assuming you really think that's the case.....
You have made a good case that DDT would save millions of lives. You have not made a good case that only DDT can save these lives. My concern is that your argument depends on something that just sounds like ecological nonsense. I don't believe DDT is as good for you as Vitamin C.
Unfortunately you cloak your argument in a robe of anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and anti-anyone with an opposing view to you that take the side of a situation nearly blindly, and solely based on who is opposed to it. Why can't the same solutions that limit the spread of malaria in other parts of the world, without DDT work there? Just because you have data suggesting DDT is effective if applied responsibly, and there is lots of other data that suggests it is more effective if applied irresponsibly, does not mean DDT is the only solution.
Yes, my "counter" to your " ..For my part I would prefer to see the environmentalists die out" perspective appears to be an opposing view, but I have little or nothing invested in the use or not of DDT, personally. In the beginning the example was interesting because you seemed to be claiming DDT was really good for us, we could eat it and it wouldn't hurt us, so the environmentalists were lying. Well, that doesn't seem to be the whole case, and you still haven't made a reasonable run at why other cures available, and apparently working in other parts of the world without the environmental consequences, are not being used. Your entire argument seems to really be focused on shitting on environmentalists. Saving a million people in the jungle adds to the argument, so you use it. Especially since you anticipate no bleeding heart liberal could really support any idea that did not immediately save those million people, and therefore you could get liberals to saw off the environmentalist leg of their stance, and perhaps fall over.
The point here is, using DDT may be the best choice. You are the one trying to peddle DDT on the board here, not me. So it is up to you to make the case it is the best, not just the easiest, the lowest long term risk, not just the most expedient, choice. I really have no axe to grind here for or against DDT use. But I know I would take a longer term look at the problem than "just" using DDT starting tomorrow hoping to save a million people in the next ten or so years at the expense of being able to feed a hundred million in the next century. One of the reasons is you drove the argument into the forum in a hearse for environmentalists, which makes your argument suspect to me. Jim