I'm not advocating killing of anyone, all I'm saying that getting rid of Malaria is not worth it if the damage done to the nature outweigh the humanitarian gain

I'm not advocating killing of anyone, all I'm saying that getting rid of Malaria is not worth it if the damage done to the nature outweigh the humanitarian gains. I believe that environmental degradation is the number one enemy of our specie's survival, nothing else comes even close. Any form activity to improve people's lives that isn't environmentally sustainable is frankly speaking waste of time, someone will eventually suffer the consequences of such actions in the future. Possibility of driving entire species extinct to protect humans definitely doesn't sound sustainable to me. Perhaps "because their lives will be miserable" argument was indeed dumb though. I wouldn't support environmentally unsustainable actions in any highly developed nation either, no matter how many lives it could save on short-term. Long-term we have no hope if environmental factors aren't taken seriously. As far as most African countries goes, reducing birth rate through any humane means possible should be the primary goal, together with building economic growth on renewables rather than fossil fuels. I would imagine that developing environmentally sustainable ways to fight malaria shouldn't be so hard if Western countries actually bothered to properly fund such research. Too bad our priorities are elsewhere, like developing more effective weapons. That's the attitude which actually creates genocide, not the idea of long-term sustainable development which I tried to promote with my comment but clearly failed.