6 ms·

Nature doesn't care about how something looks politically. Those decisions were bad and aren't vindicated because nothing went wrong (there are other cases wher

Nature doesn't care about how something looks politically. Those decisions were bad and aren't vindicated because nothing went wrong (there are other cases where things went very very wrong, as another commenter mentions with DDT). In a nonlinear world you can never know whether you were right or just lucky.

yyyk 6y ago
Make no mistake, the West would do DDT all over again if that was the price for getting rid of Malaria. But a very targeted intervention is off limits due to 'well, we don't know, something might go wrong'. Nature doesn't care if humans all die. Nature doesn't 'care' at all. Humanity does. And this looks very ugly and very hypocritical.
- throwanem 6y ago
  "The West" is doing DDT all over again. This time it's neonicotinoids, and just like with DDT, they're being pushed by ag conglomerates as a way to increase profits, with a side of "cigarettes give you healthy skin!" style propaganda to make them look innocent. Last time, we "merely" almost wiped out a whole class of apex predators and caused a collection of trophic cascades. This time, with a menu of unintended consequences only the most obvious of which is the "colony collapse disorder" that's been imperiling pollinators worldwide, we might just end up managing to break modern agriculture entirely and cause famines worldwide, too. So, yeah, "targeted interventions" merit extreme skepticism, because we as a species suck at them. If you want to look at that through a lens of anti-Westernism, you're welcome.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    There's already a "colony collapse disorder", and nobody does anything. But when it comes to the Third World, suddenly we have to do nothing because something might happen (nobody even has a mechanism. We're supposed to sacrifice millions for delusions). This is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are enough good people in the world to ignore the callous.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      The point you're ignoring in your haste to indict everyone you don't like - due to what I suspect to be your complete ignorance of, or at least disinterest in, the millions of dollars annually spent on research aimed at eradicating malaria worldwide by the very same "West" for which you cannot find enough opprobrium - is that we can't know what consequences will come of these kinds of broad, blunt methods. Nobody expected DDT to drive large birds of prey nearly to extinction. Nobody expected neonicotinoids to concentrate in ecosystems and have a very similar effect on the insects we depend on to pollinate our food crops. It's not about predicting that terrible things will happen. It's that we aren't able to make sure terrible things won't. Neonicotinoids already have us at non-negligible risk of worldwide famine through agricultural collapse as a result of consequences we were too stupid and too hubristic to predict. How many millions do you think that will kill if it happens? Because that's the kind of risk you're proposing - and, just as with that famine, it's a risk that will hit worst on the most vulnerable, least privileged people in the world. You know? The same ones in whose supposed defense you're making such a performative display of contempt?
      - yyyk 6y ago
        I'm not indicting the entire West. I'm indicting certain people in the West that post silly almost conspiracy style stuff against obvious solutions to a deadly disease. There's an obvious balance here, and it's not on the 'we don't know how but something might happen' side. How about we all stop posting on HN? After all, posting might change magnetic fields which might change a butterfly's path which could cause a deadly hurricane? P.S. We knew even at the time DDT was poisonous to life, and that draining swamps kills ecosystems. What changed wasn't so much our knowledge, but the situation (the West had gotten rid of many deadly diseases by that time, mosquitoes had started to develop resistance).
        throwanem 6y ago
        Well, you're making not posting on HN any more look like an appealing option, I'll give you that much.
        6y ago
  - User23 6y ago
    Malaria used to be endemic in the USA as far north as New York. The USA "did DDT" specifically to eliminate malaria [1]. And it worked, the stuff is so nasty and persistent it completely wiped out the disease reservoir in the mosquito population. Was it worth the price? I'm an Audubon supporter and bird watcher, but I value human lives more highly. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  The US stamped out malaria in the 1930's as a public works program. That was before DDT.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Well, other western countries did use DDT heavily, e.g. Italy[0]. Besides, it's not like the means used in the 1930s didn't have a significant ecological effect... I'll note that the modern suggestions to eradicate Malaria are more nuanced and at least try to only affect the parasite/host. e.g. releasing sterile males, immunizing the mosquitoes against the parasite[1], ATSBs, a GM fungus to poison mosquitoes, making human blood deadly to the parasite[2], etc. IMHO (I'm far from an expert), the most promising seems to be releasing sterile males followed by some of the other approaches to deal the death blow to the parasite (though if the mosquito goes I won't be bothered). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 I wonder whether this can scale... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950

yyyk 6y ago

Make no mistake, the West would do DDT all over again if that was the price for getting rid of Malaria. But a very targeted intervention is off limits due to 'well, we don't know, something might go wrong'. Nature doesn't care if humans all die. Nature doesn't 'care' at all. Humanity does. And this looks very ugly and very hypocritical.

throwanem 6y ago
"The West" is doing DDT all over again. This time it's neonicotinoids, and just like with DDT, they're being pushed by ag conglomerates as a way to increase profits, with a side of "cigarettes give you healthy skin!" style propaganda to make them look innocent. Last time, we "merely" almost wiped out a whole class of apex predators and caused a collection of trophic cascades. This time, with a menu of unintended consequences only the most obvious of which is the "colony collapse disorder" that's been imperiling pollinators worldwide, we might just end up managing to break modern agriculture entirely and cause famines worldwide, too. So, yeah, "targeted interventions" merit extreme skepticism, because we as a species suck at them. If you want to look at that through a lens of anti-Westernism, you're welcome.
- yyyk 6y ago
  There's already a "colony collapse disorder", and nobody does anything. But when it comes to the Third World, suddenly we have to do nothing because something might happen (nobody even has a mechanism. We're supposed to sacrifice millions for delusions). This is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are enough good people in the world to ignore the callous.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    The point you're ignoring in your haste to indict everyone you don't like - due to what I suspect to be your complete ignorance of, or at least disinterest in, the millions of dollars annually spent on research aimed at eradicating malaria worldwide by the very same "West" for which you cannot find enough opprobrium - is that we can't know what consequences will come of these kinds of broad, blunt methods. Nobody expected DDT to drive large birds of prey nearly to extinction. Nobody expected neonicotinoids to concentrate in ecosystems and have a very similar effect on the insects we depend on to pollinate our food crops. It's not about predicting that terrible things will happen. It's that we aren't able to make sure terrible things won't. Neonicotinoids already have us at non-negligible risk of worldwide famine through agricultural collapse as a result of consequences we were too stupid and too hubristic to predict. How many millions do you think that will kill if it happens? Because that's the kind of risk you're proposing - and, just as with that famine, it's a risk that will hit worst on the most vulnerable, least privileged people in the world. You know? The same ones in whose supposed defense you're making such a performative display of contempt?
    - yyyk 6y ago
      I'm not indicting the entire West. I'm indicting certain people in the West that post silly almost conspiracy style stuff against obvious solutions to a deadly disease. There's an obvious balance here, and it's not on the 'we don't know how but something might happen' side. How about we all stop posting on HN? After all, posting might change magnetic fields which might change a butterfly's path which could cause a deadly hurricane? P.S. We knew even at the time DDT was poisonous to life, and that draining swamps kills ecosystems. What changed wasn't so much our knowledge, but the situation (the West had gotten rid of many deadly diseases by that time, mosquitoes had started to develop resistance).
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Well, you're making not posting on HN any more look like an appealing option, I'll give you that much.
      - 6y ago
- User23 6y ago
  Malaria used to be endemic in the USA as far north as New York. The USA "did DDT" specifically to eliminate malaria [1]. And it worked, the stuff is so nasty and persistent it completely wiped out the disease reservoir in the mosquito population. Was it worth the price? I'm an Audubon supporter and bird watcher, but I value human lives more highly. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
Gibbon1 6y ago
The US stamped out malaria in the 1930's as a public works program. That was before DDT.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Well, other western countries did use DDT heavily, e.g. Italy[0]. Besides, it's not like the means used in the 1930s didn't have a significant ecological effect... I'll note that the modern suggestions to eradicate Malaria are more nuanced and at least try to only affect the parasite/host. e.g. releasing sterile males, immunizing the mosquitoes against the parasite[1], ATSBs, a GM fungus to poison mosquitoes, making human blood deadly to the parasite[2], etc. IMHO (I'm far from an expert), the most promising seems to be releasing sterile males followed by some of the other approaches to deal the death blow to the parasite (though if the mosquito goes I won't be bothered). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 I wonder whether this can scale... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950