4 ms·
>People are also dying of war and hunger and lack of clean water and medicine. No one can fix this with a snap of their fingers. You have to reform (replace?)
by mrfredward 8y ago
>People are also dying of war and hunger and lack of clean water and medicine.
No one can fix this with a snap of their fingers. You have to reform (replace?) governments, change cultural standards around sanitation, build tons of infrastructure. No matter how much aid is sent, it will take a long time even in the best case. These problems won't be fixed for good in the near future.
Perhaps malaria can be made a thing of the past before then. If so, don't let hundreds of thousands die because we "should" be fixing poverty instead.
- hutzlibu 8y ago"Perhaps malaria can be made a thing of the past before then." Perhaps along with the last remaining shreds of intact eco systems that remained. Oh and perhaps some suicide genes end up somewhere else.
- mrfredward 8y agoDDT is still being used for mosquito control, because the risks and ecological damage are deemed to be less important than the half million people per year dying of malaria. Millions of lives currently depend on reducing mosquito populations, so methods of control will be used no matter what. Targeting a specific species of mosquito rather than spraying DDT everywhere will reduce the collateral damage to the environment immensely.
- hutzlibu 8y agoDDT is bad. But its effect is limited to the amount of used chemical. Altering genomes of living organisms with the intention of wiping out a species ... has a potential unlimited side effect. I especially like the second example: fighting the toad in australia. Originally the toad was brought in to mess with the local ecosystem ... then it messed too much and now the solution is altering the genome with a exponentional bigger impact. Isn't that real live satire? I mean how could that possible go wrong, since we understand everything about ecosystems and the genome today and are masters about controlling complex systems ...