3 ms·

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 m

by 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.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    I find your appeal to hyperbole pretty distasteful. Please be civil and argue from the facts of the situation. There's a huge chasm of difference between what GP is saying and the words you're putting in their mouth.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      What am I missing? The current situation is that many people needlessly die. The current approaches don't work well enough. Various radical approaches to fixing that have been investigated and tested to a significant degree. Now given the cost, testing and various answers to the objections, there comes the time the objections have to put a bit more meat and go beyond people have screwed up before, and something might happen.
- jki275 6y ago
  Just for the record, DDT didn't actually do any of that, and your histrionics about pesticides aren't supported by evidence either. The West murdered millions of third world children when we banned DDT.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    A series of extraordinary claims, for which you don't care to provide any support whatsoever. Okay. I did, with a little effort, find a single source [1] for your "DDT didn't harm birds" claim. Of course, he's [2] also a climate denier, a conspiracy theorist, and a lobbyist for companies whose financial interests are coincidentally in total alignment with his "scientific" advocacy. But hey, if that's the company you want to keep, don't let me dissuade you. [1] http://archive.is/UTyoT#selection-2159.0-2156.3 http://archive.is/UTyoT#selection-2159.0-2156.3 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
    - jki275 6y ago
      You didn't look very hard: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-...
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Zubrin's fine, if excessively Golden Age of Science Fiction for my taste, when he talks about Mars. Earth, not so much. But, again, if you want to keep company with someone who's super excited about anthropogenic climate change, likens mosquitoes to Nazi V-2s, and alludes with crafty dissimulation to the conspiracy theory around environmentalism that forms the backbone of such sober documentaries as "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (2014), go for it.
        jki275 6y ago
        You can attack the messenger all day, without addressing any of the actual science. Just because you dislike the facts doesn't change that they remain facts. Silent Spring was a work of fiction, but it killed millions of children in the developing world, and continues to do so to this day. Fortunately at least some have seen the light and relaxed the ban on DDT.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  I think the risk equation being questioned is different. Today, right now, with a better understanding of the risks for DDT, would it be better to have a campaign to eradicate malaria in sub-saharan Africa with tools like DDT? There would be ecological damage, both anticipatable and unknown. And that would have second and third-order detrimental impacts. But we'd also have a huge gain. Would it be worth it? Right now it is hard to have that kind of discussion. Another related example: is it better to have the consequences of polluted cities powered with unclean coal, than to have a less developed country with fewer resources to spend on things like healthcare. Which on net is better? I certainly don't know, but the tradeoffs are real.

by yyyk 6y ago

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.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  I find your appeal to hyperbole pretty distasteful. Please be civil and argue from the facts of the situation. There's a huge chasm of difference between what GP is saying and the words you're putting in their mouth.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    What am I missing? The current situation is that many people needlessly die. The current approaches don't work well enough. Various radical approaches to fixing that have been investigated and tested to a significant degree. Now given the cost, testing and various answers to the objections, there comes the time the objections have to put a bit more meat and go beyond people have screwed up before, and something might happen.
jki275 6y ago
Just for the record, DDT didn't actually do any of that, and your histrionics about pesticides aren't supported by evidence either. The West murdered millions of third world children when we banned DDT.
- throwanem 6y ago
  A series of extraordinary claims, for which you don't care to provide any support whatsoever. Okay. I did, with a little effort, find a single source [1] for your "DDT didn't harm birds" claim. Of course, he's [2] also a climate denier, a conspiracy theorist, and a lobbyist for companies whose financial interests are coincidentally in total alignment with his "scientific" advocacy. But hey, if that's the company you want to keep, don't let me dissuade you. [1] http://archive.is/UTyoT#selection-2159.0-2156.3 http://archive.is/UTyoT#selection-2159.0-2156.3 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
  - jki275 6y ago
    You didn't look very hard: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-...
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Zubrin's fine, if excessively Golden Age of Science Fiction for my taste, when he talks about Mars. Earth, not so much. But, again, if you want to keep company with someone who's super excited about anthropogenic climate change, likens mosquitoes to Nazi V-2s, and alludes with crafty dissimulation to the conspiracy theory around environmentalism that forms the backbone of such sober documentaries as "Kingsman: The Secret Service" (2014), go for it.
      - jki275 6y ago
        You can attack the messenger all day, without addressing any of the actual science. Just because you dislike the facts doesn't change that they remain facts. Silent Spring was a work of fiction, but it killed millions of children in the developing world, and continues to do so to this day. Fortunately at least some have seen the light and relaxed the ban on DDT.
jacobr1 6y ago
I think the risk equation being questioned is different. Today, right now, with a better understanding of the risks for DDT, would it be better to have a campaign to eradicate malaria in sub-saharan Africa with tools like DDT? There would be ecological damage, both anticipatable and unknown. And that would have second and third-order detrimental impacts. But we'd also have a huge gain. Would it be worth it? Right now it is hard to have that kind of discussion. Another related example: is it better to have the consequences of polluted cities powered with unclean coal, than to have a less developed country with fewer resources to spend on things like healthcare. Which on net is better? I certainly don't know, but the tradeoffs are real.