38 ms·
> As late as 2004 leading newspapers editorialized that eradicating malaria in Africa outweighed the environmental damage This doesn't make sense. Eradicating
by mrpopo 6y ago
> As late as 2004 leading newspapers editorialized that eradicating malaria in Africa outweighed the environmental damage
This doesn't make sense. Eradicating malaria in Africa is beneficial to the human species. Environmental damage applies to all other species. I don't understand how one could "outweigh" the other. They are just two different objectives.
- ben_w 6y agoEnvironment also includes the crops, the insects that pollinate the crops, the pests which eat the crops, the predators that keep the crop-eating pests under control, the fish… We’re not (yet) beings of pure thought who can exist independent of our environment, so the damage to the environment does have to be counted before we decide if something is net-positive.
- dtech 6y agoof course they are related. Take a preposterous example: draining the mediterranean sea would be an environmental disaster which we wouldn't do. But if it would forever end world hunger, poverty and disease we would do it. The trade-off changes.