Does it ever bother the environmental movement that they've been responsible for more deaths than Hitler?

Question

Looking at the current debate on Global Warming, and the fact that environmental advocates are trying to 'save us all', isn't ironic that so many in the same movement are consistently and blatantly anti-human?

Most people cite the 'Global Cooling' scare a few decades ago, which wasn't really supported by scientists to begin with, and was a total flop. But the idea that these people can't and won't do significant damage to human beings is naive considering the evidence. Have we all forgotten about DDT?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3785

Averaging 1-2 million Malaria deaths a year, these people are DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of more than 70 million human beings. And what was their reaction?

Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

"People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any."

We're seeing the same attitude now with Global warming. Most of the developed nations of the world (where most of these activists live) are already on their way to becoming environmentally friendly. It's going to be the poor in these third world nations that are going to suffer by being denied the basic industries needed to industrialize and modernize their countries on the basis of an equally dubious theory? Wouldn't we hate to look back after 50 years and find that we're responsible for another 60 million deaths based on faulty science and overzealous environmentalists?

iwasnotanazipolk: "Spraying a house with small amounts of DDT costs $1.44 per year; alternatives are five to 10 times more, making them unaffordable in poor countries." Did you not see that part of the article? I was specifically referring to deaths in third world nations. They can't afford the alternatives, and that's the problem

Answer 1

Do you like living in lies?
DDT production was never banned. If you would bother to do some research, you would see it is still being produced in America, and shipped to countries that use it.
Furthermore, you would realize, that malaria can be cured if caught early enough, so in reality lack of access to healthcare, is what is responsible for the deaths.

BT has proven successful at eliminating mosquitos, and isn't near as harmful as DDT.
If it is scientifically proven that DDT didn't cause the effects that scientists claimed, how is it that the problems have reversed since its use was banned in the USA? How it is that you more than likely have trace amounts of DDT still in your body just like anyone else?

Now compare your costs of DDT to innoculating standing water with Bacillus thurengensis, a bacteria that will continue to grow in that water, eliminating mosquitos.


ummm third world countries are still using DDT, and spraying their homes with it. I'm not sure where the writer of this huge example of complete misinformation get their lies, but it simply isn't true.

Answer 2

What connection is there between current global warming issues and discussion and worldwide use of DDT? You imply a connection. DDT is still used as disease vector control in parts of the world. The "environmental movement" has been concerned with (water and) air pollution (a big deal here in Southern California---better air quality now than 30 years ago) and other issues--including hydrocarbon dependence--not at all involving DDT. Even your own source describes the "DDT people" to be "environmental extremists", implying that it is not a mainstream environmental issue. By the way, it has been said that netting and, I believe, quinine, are very inexpensive and could greatly reduce malaria deaths. The Gates Foundation, among others, are active in efforts to distribute these where needed. I'm not active in any movement, by the way.

Answer 3

1) If you traveled more or had better sources, you'd know that MANY third world countries still use DDT.
2) If there is an increase in Malaria cases it's not due to a lack of DDT use. It's due to global warming.
3) Any effort to reduce emission gases and any prevention of atmospheric compromise is a hugely positive step toward the well being of all people all over the earth. Global warming is facilitating an explosion in the population of malaria vectors.

Answer 4

Hitler never killed anybody, except possibly one of his 'girl friends' but this was recorded as self inflicted. It was his 'teams' that did the killing. The leaders such as Himmler of the SS, FAINTED when he saw a mass killing, and was ill for some weeks afterwards. The main leaders never killed anybody themselves, they ordered others to do the dirty work.

Answer 5

This is going so sound harsh; but isn't it better to save the Earth that inhabits 6 billion people than to accommodate 60 thousand poor people by doing harm to the Earth? Who says that industrialization and modernization is the ultimate goal? That's what put us in this mess anyway.

Answer 6

I'd look carefully at that source of yours. And there are far more effective ways of mosquito eradication than DDT. That rag you are quoting is a nut case anti-environmental lobby group, you know that don't you?

Answer 7

Seek professional help. Quickly!

Answer 8

Unfortunately it doesn't at all.