Bring Back DDT
The New York Times has finally figured out what most of us have known for a long time: that the ban on DDT pushed on third world countries by wealthy, healthy Westerners, has caused millions of deaths from malaria.
And now that they've grasped the basic concept involved, I suppose we can count on the Times to call for the abolition of the EPA and the FDA... right?
(Thanks to Paul Clark for the link.)
Comments (14)
There are many better ways of coping with malaria and mosquitoes. Sure DDT lowers mosquito numbers and therefore malaria risk in the short term, but what about the long term.
The laws of natural selection need to be considered. If all mosquitoes which are susceptible to DDT are killed then the mosquitoes which are resistant will survive and reproduce. Over time DDT application will have very little effect on mosquito numbers. Some libertarians it seems foolishly agree with Keynes in this instance: that "in the long run we will all be dead."
Also there are naturallly occurring predators to mosquitoes and they are also effected by DDT.
DDT is no miracle cure and eliminates most possibilities for natural predation and in the long run will not be very effective anyway. DDT hinders all natural methods of mosquito management and creates a dependence on DDT and other pesticides.
Also chemical warfare against nature atleast initially was heavily subsidised by governments. It is certainly not the work of entrepreneurs. In fact some people (Bill Mollison) are tempted to say that all aspects of modern subsidised agriculture (especially pesticide usage) are a continuation of WW2. Not the free market.
My prescription for replacing DDT. (1) have quinine (Cinchona species) bark readily available, (2) depending on environment effective predators may include bats, mosquito larvae eating fish, etc and (3) do not accept government advice.
Published: April 9, 2004 9:23 PM
The same things about mosquitoes developing resistances and immunities regarding DDT can also be said about about any other remedy.
The fact is, if you hit them long enough and hard enough with pesticides ALL the mosquitoes in said area will be killed so you don't need to worry about developing immunities.
This is how anti-biotics work for common strains of streptococcus. You make sure you take the anti-biotics for 10 days -- even though you feel better with-in 3, so you make sure you kill them all before the more resistant kind have a chance to reproduce.
I don't think anybody here's saying that government should do it. But collecting and releasing bats and other things is simply much more expensive then DDT and other chemical agents. These people are simply trying to survive. They don't have the time, money, technological advancements, or other resources to worry about preserving the environment, when they're desperately trying to preserve themselves. When they get wealthy enough, they'll start thinking about the environment.
The best way to get them wealthy is to let the free market work.
Tracy
Published: April 9, 2004 11:22 PM
DDT and harsher methods worked well in North America, how many cases of malaria does the US have now?
DDT is easily the most cost-effective and benign way of fighting malaria. In terms of saving human lives, it is arguably the most valuable synthetic chemical ever discovered by humankind.
The alternatives to using DDT to eradicate malaria in an area involve using more toxic chemicals and/or environmentally destructive techniques such as draining swamps and wetlands.
The mosquito population does not need to be reduced long-term to disrupt the malaria life cycle and dramatically reduce its incidence.
While DDT is as you say, no miracle chemical, and should be used intelligently as part of a larger program, there is nothing that approaches its usefulness. The 'natural' methods of mosquito control are prohibitively expensive and difficult or impossible to implement where the millions of people are dying yearly from malaria.
'Chemical warfare' is part of nature, as most organisms produce specific toxic chemicals for no other purpose than to fight off predators and pathogens. That most toxic pesticides and fungicides are 'naturally' produced by plants is overlooked too often.
I am sure that if enough compassionate donors existed, some entrepreneur would see to it that their desire to buy a malaria-free region was met. And of course one has to realize that markets won't get very far in the regions where malaria is a leading killer.
Quinine resistant mosquitos are on the rise in southern Africa, DDT works better. 'Natural' predator techniques are prohibitively costly. Non-governmental voluntary organizations do have a role to play in civil society, and this is an area in which they could shine. But as far as government activities to eliminate, malaria control would be rather low on my list of priorities.
Published: April 9, 2004 11:43 PM
While it is true that natural selection (evolution) occurs any time you apply an external stress to a population, that is no more an argument against using DDT than against using anti-biotics. As others have said, the idea is to use it to kill all of the infected mosquitos, not just some of them. Furthermore, DDT can be used in combination with other pestacides. Furthermore, you should note that populatiosn don't "evolve to meet specific natural challenges". When a natural disaster occurs, a selective force is applied that wipes out all individuals who don't *already* possess the genetics to cope with it. There is no guarantee that any population or species will survive a particular stress (especially a man-made stress). It should also be noted that there are many methods of killing organisms that are too harsh to allow for any adaptations.
Published: April 10, 2004 1:18 PM
Keep in mind that those who originally and still oppose the use of DDT do so because they hate humanity. They aren't troubled that a few million people die from malaria since all they care about is whether the shells of bird's eggs are strong enough to last until the birds hatch. It's birds they care about, not people. In fact, the fewer people there are, the more room there will be for birds and other animals. The drop in deaths that occurred after DDT use became common was a disaster from the point of view of the environmentalists.
The more humans that die, the less rain forest will be burned to make farmland. The more dead humans, the more forest there is for gorillas to frolic in. Fewer humans=good, more humans=bad. It's a simple equation.
Published: April 10, 2004 5:10 PM
DDT didn't cause a decrease in egg shell thickness, a lack of calcium in the diet was the culprite. The most successful puplic misconception of the EcoTerrist too date; Setting the standard for All Junk Science Today.
Published: April 10, 2004 6:13 PM
Benjamin Marks: "The laws of natural selection need to be considered. If all mosquitoes which are susceptible to DDT are killed then the mosquitoes which are resistant will survive and reproduce."
Similarly if we ban DDT then millions will die and we can breed a new malaria resistant humanity! ... or not ...
We can argue forever about what the "best" malaria control is, keeping in mind that "best" takes into account not merely effectiveness but also cost and availability and may differ from one case to another. The people who are supposed to make these kinds of valuations are the consumers of DDT who are trying to protect themselves, their families and their neighbors not North Americans who consider malaria an exotic disease and who are smug in their belief that there are better ways to handle the problem.
Published: April 10, 2004 9:13 PM
Peter White,
How silly of us to think that the those who banned DDT actually care about saving people's lives. You're absolutely right: as far as these people are concerned, the less humans there are, the better. More room for their precious spotted owls.
Of course, the environmentalists aren't the only one's who pushed to get DDT banned. You can rest assured that politicians and bureaucrats were plenty happy to get more power. You can also rest assured that any companies selling products competing with DDT were plenty happy to have DDT use criminalized. Those same people will now oppose its legalization, and will likely come up with a whole host of bogus arguments for why people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what pestacide to use on their own property.
Published: April 11, 2004 12:02 AM
Quote:
"Benjamin Marks: "The laws of natural selection need to be considered. If all mosquitoes which are susceptible to DDT are killed then the mosquitoes which are resistant will survive and reproduce."
Similarly if we ban DDT then millions will die and we can breed a new malaria resistant humanity!"
Matt, that is a brilliant point. I think many a libertarian and conservative would be chuckling at this point.
We need more comments like this among 'the movement'. Satire can be an extremely effective political weapon.
Published: April 11, 2004 12:49 AM
I admit that I do not live in an area with malaria problems. But every disease, pest, weed etc. no longer is a risk or bother to me. I have only used what I consider methods without any negative side effects in fact with advantages.
For instance fruit fly infestations are eliminated by chickens eating the larvae in rotting fruit, this way I have no fruit fly problem and an excellent soil conditioner, income source, egg and meat supply.
It is not for government to do anything it is the individual. And surely there are some traditional methods to treat malaria, kill or repel mosquitoes etc. that don't have any of the side effects of DDT and in fact are advantageous for reasons other than disease control. And can be implemented by individuals with resources they can acquire on the free market.
Published: April 11, 2004 4:20 AM
Also, nothing can be eliminated, even if you kill all the mosquitoes in an area, the effort required to essentially fence off and quarantine the area from foreign mosquitoes is outrageous.
In my opinion the individual is better off developing system of natural predators that will permanently decrease malaria/mosquito infestations. If you kill all mosquitoes then the niche they previously filled will be filled by something else (or not) and like any top down intervention in the market will lead to many unintended effects throughout the food web.
Published: April 11, 2004 4:28 AM
"In my opinion the individual is better off developing system of natural predators that will permanently decrease malaria/mosquito infestations."
Call me crazy, but my understanding of libertarian philosophy tells me that you are in absolutely no position to tell the individual what they are or arent better off doing. If an individual is worried about the harmful effects of DDT, and can afford to try other methods, then they probably will.
However, if they cannot afford to try other methods, whether they worry or dont worry about the effects of DDT, which do you think comes first in their list of preferences: protection from malaria or sacrificing their life to prevent hurting the sacred environment with DDT?
Published: April 12, 2004 12:16 PM
Benjamin Marks,
You seem to have a Discovery Channel knowledge of the environment. Organisms do not exist to "fill a niche" in the eco-system, nor do organisms evolve to fill a "niche" that is unfilled.
Published: April 12, 2004 12:21 PM
i enjoyed your site however i couldnt quite find the answers i was looking for.I am just starting yr 12 and we have been asked to do an indepth research on survival of the fittest, in my case its the cattle tick and how it has become immune to the pesticide DDT, if you have any information or links that you could possibly forward on to me to help me out on this topic i would greatly appreciate it.
Published: October 15, 2004 9:41 PM