5 ms·

DDT was brutal on the bird population. My father worked with state DNR to bring back the Bald Eagle population after DDT decimated it due to the soft eggshells

DDT was brutal on the bird population. My father worked with state DNR to bring back the Bald Eagle population after DDT decimated it due to the soft eggshells it caused.

mschuster91 9y ago
So basically we (as humanity) have three choices: 1) use neonicotinoid pesticides and killing off the bees 2) use DDT and kill off birds + danger to mammals 3) revert back to more traditional agriculture, and risk not being able to feed people Basically, we're choosing between different evils :/
- joecool1029 9y ago
  >2) use DDT and kill off birds + danger to mammals No danger to mammals, kill some birds (the hawk/eagle shell thinning was a lie[1], does kill some songbirds in high doses but I guess so does Teflon stoves), kills far less helpful insects. It's the only one out of the three options where you don't risk killing hundreds of millions of people with disease and/or famine. [1]http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
  - vvanders 9y ago
    Yeah, other than the fact that the raptor population bounced back after DDT use was curtailed. The issue has been pretty extensively studied and while you can cherry-pick individual studies the broad consensus is that DDT was one of the contributing factors.
    - joecool1029 9y ago
      >Yeah, other than the fact that the raptor population bounced back after DDT use was curtailed. The raptor population was bouncing back right as we started to introduce DDT. It's a funny thing that happens when you stop incentivizing shooting of the birds (wasn't until the early 40's they got federal protection, and it takes time for populations to recover). If you'd have read the sources I've linked (and the any of the citations in those sources) you'd see you're wrong. 'But my father', anecdotes are nice when they come along with data. Stringing together multiple studies is the best way to disprove an established narrative... but unfortunately the amount of time it takes to disprove well applied bullshit greatly outweighs the time it took to apply it. EDIT: Also while I'm at it. Ever think to consider that thin shells might have been caused by greatly increased mercury and lead levels of the time? We banned TEL and reduced coal consumption since then. Look at nearly every study that concluded DDT had to be to blame for thin shells and you'll find they noted increased lead, mercury, and aluminum levels along with... but never put it into their conclusion.
  - djur 9y ago
    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has also published articles claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS, that global warming is not human-caused and is beneficial anyway, that abortion causes breast cancer, and that vaccines cause autism. It is published by a far-right advocacy group and is neither a credible nor neutral source.
- chc 9y ago
  We could also scale back our agriculture by reducing our dependence on animal products. There are a number of mass produced crops that go in large part to feed animals that we then turn into food at a net energy loss. But in general, we'd rather paint ourselves into this corner than eat our vegetables.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  > revert back to more traditional agriculture, and risk not being able to feed people Given that the average American watches TV for something like 8 hours per day, I'd say there's roughly zero risk of not being able to feed people.
- linuskendall 9y ago
  Presently we produce something like 5500 kcal per person on earth. Much of it to feed animals. Producing enough nutrition is not the issue - distribution and patterns of consumption are (and these are more political barriers than physical ones).
- linuskendall 9y ago
  Presently we produce something like 5500 kcal per person on earth. Much of it to feed animals. Producing enough nutrition is not the issue - distribution and patterns of consumption are (and these are more political barriers than physical ones).
- aerique 9y ago
  There's enough humans walking around and 200,000 new ones are being added to the pool every day. It's not really a choice.
  - andybak 9y ago
    > There's enough humans walking around There's an awful lot of debatable thinking hidden in those 5 words.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      You think we need to increase the human population of Earth?
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        I doubt andybak does. But as soon as you get into the ways you stop 'them' breeding you end up in a very dark place.
        aerique 9y ago
        That is true and andybak is correct. I have been thinking more and more about this and the mind certainly wanders to dark places. On the other hand, it is a problem that keeps getting bigger. It feels a bit like the elephant in the room. Either because of the aforementioned "solutions" that come up initially[1] or because "science will fix it" since it has been shown that once people have it well they stop having a lot of kids. Still, every five days there's 1 million more people on this earth and it doesn't look like most of these people will have it good in the near future. And meanwhile everything else just has to make room for more of us. It just doesn't seem sustainable. [1] And who am I to stop people from having kids? I've got two myself.
        andybak 9y ago
        You know we've passed "peak child", right? The only thing that's still causing the population to increase is the inconvenient decrease in untimely death.

DDT was brutal on the bird population. My father worked with state DNR to bring back the Bald Eagle population after DDT decimated it due to the soft eggshells it caused.

mschuster91 9y ago

So basically we (as humanity) have three choices: 1) use neonicotinoid pesticides and killing off the bees 2) use DDT and kill off birds + danger to mammals 3) revert back to more traditional agriculture, and risk not being able to feed people Basically, we're choosing between different evils :/

joecool1029 9y ago
>2) use DDT and kill off birds + danger to mammals No danger to mammals, kill some birds (the hawk/eagle shell thinning was a lie[1], does kill some songbirds in high doses but I guess so does Teflon stoves), kills far less helpful insects. It's the only one out of the three options where you don't risk killing hundreds of millions of people with disease and/or famine. [1]http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
- vvanders 9y ago
  Yeah, other than the fact that the raptor population bounced back after DDT use was curtailed. The issue has been pretty extensively studied and while you can cherry-pick individual studies the broad consensus is that DDT was one of the contributing factors.
  - joecool1029 9y ago
    >Yeah, other than the fact that the raptor population bounced back after DDT use was curtailed. The raptor population was bouncing back right as we started to introduce DDT. It's a funny thing that happens when you stop incentivizing shooting of the birds (wasn't until the early 40's they got federal protection, and it takes time for populations to recover). If you'd have read the sources I've linked (and the any of the citations in those sources) you'd see you're wrong. 'But my father', anecdotes are nice when they come along with data. Stringing together multiple studies is the best way to disprove an established narrative... but unfortunately the amount of time it takes to disprove well applied bullshit greatly outweighs the time it took to apply it. EDIT: Also while I'm at it. Ever think to consider that thin shells might have been caused by greatly increased mercury and lead levels of the time? We banned TEL and reduced coal consumption since then. Look at nearly every study that concluded DDT had to be to blame for thin shells and you'll find they noted increased lead, mercury, and aluminum levels along with... but never put it into their conclusion.
- djur 9y ago
  The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has also published articles claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS, that global warming is not human-caused and is beneficial anyway, that abortion causes breast cancer, and that vaccines cause autism. It is published by a far-right advocacy group and is neither a credible nor neutral source.
chc 9y ago
We could also scale back our agriculture by reducing our dependence on animal products. There are a number of mass produced crops that go in large part to feed animals that we then turn into food at a net energy loss. But in general, we'd rather paint ourselves into this corner than eat our vegetables.
Alex3917 9y ago
> revert back to more traditional agriculture, and risk not being able to feed people Given that the average American watches TV for something like 8 hours per day, I'd say there's roughly zero risk of not being able to feed people.
linuskendall 9y ago
Presently we produce something like 5500 kcal per person on earth. Much of it to feed animals. Producing enough nutrition is not the issue - distribution and patterns of consumption are (and these are more political barriers than physical ones).
linuskendall 9y ago
Presently we produce something like 5500 kcal per person on earth. Much of it to feed animals. Producing enough nutrition is not the issue - distribution and patterns of consumption are (and these are more political barriers than physical ones).
aerique 9y ago
There's enough humans walking around and 200,000 new ones are being added to the pool every day. It's not really a choice.
- andybak 9y ago
  > There's enough humans walking around There's an awful lot of debatable thinking hidden in those 5 words.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    You think we need to increase the human population of Earth?
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      I doubt andybak does. But as soon as you get into the ways you stop 'them' breeding you end up in a very dark place.
      - aerique 9y ago
        That is true and andybak is correct. I have been thinking more and more about this and the mind certainly wanders to dark places. On the other hand, it is a problem that keeps getting bigger. It feels a bit like the elephant in the room. Either because of the aforementioned "solutions" that come up initially[1] or because "science will fix it" since it has been shown that once people have it well they stop having a lot of kids. Still, every five days there's 1 million more people on this earth and it doesn't look like most of these people will have it good in the near future. And meanwhile everything else just has to make room for more of us. It just doesn't seem sustainable. [1] And who am I to stop people from having kids? I've got two myself.
        andybak 9y ago
        You know we've passed "peak child", right? The only thing that's still causing the population to increase is the inconvenient decrease in untimely death.