Ed Darrel and I have been going back and forth the past few days over the use of DDT to combat malaria. Obviously we present contradicting facts, so I won’t go into detail by listing even more statistics that support my argument. I will, however, point out other statements and implications that he made and I believe to be false.
Mr. Darrell claims that I think Africans are too stupid and poor to use DDT. Poor? Absolutely. If Mr. Darrell believes that Africans are wealthy enough to fight malaria, why don’t they buy the mosquito nets he proposes, which he claims are cheaper than DDT? Also, he says that malaria must be treated medically. Again, the issue of wealth is important. If Africans are so wealthy, why aren’t they getting medical care?
Now to speak to his point that I believe Africans are stupid. I don’t believe stupidity to be a problem, since all humans have the capability to be rational. But in Africa any rational behavior is offset by a deep mystical, tribal culture, and countries are ruled by dictators. Genocide, female circumcisions, rampant AIDS, and starvation are all symptoms of the prevailing culture/politics of many African nations. Wealth will never be produced in such an environment, and wealth is what is needed to bring Africans up to speed with the civilized world.
I believe that Mr. Darrell expects western nations to pay, with expropriated wealth, for the sins of third-world nations. He is of a collectivist/altruist mindset synonymous with Environmentalism. We all must sacrifice to the needy, the less able, the less good, and to nature – not for any selfish reason that might make human life better, but nature for its own sake, so that it can be free from the scourge of humanity. Government agencies such as the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences benefit from banning human use and influence of the environment to legitimize their existence. They and other government subsidized individuals and groups use their positions to promote false information in order to gain more funding and power.
Freedom is the only thing that can save those in the third world: freedom to think, freedom to produce, freedom to own property and use it in one’s best interest. Collectivists believe that the United States and other western nations are wealthy by accident, by some twist of fate or random luck. But those nations became wealthy by recognizing and protecting individual rights, something third-world countries do not.
No matter what the solution is to stopping malaria, whether it’s DDT, bed nets or medical care, none can be implemented without first curing poverty.
This is my blog, so I get the last word.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


I agree with the points made about the culture and would also like to point out the amount of damage our foreign aid is doing. Its a form of global altruism if you think about it. Look at Haiti for instance. We've created a welfare state there with our generosity.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the DDT issue, the facts do seem to be contradicting and I will have to review both sides. However I did notice the typical anti-corporatist rant in Ed's remarks. I've heard of other similar remarks; "You're just a tool of the oil industry, therefore you're not objective." or something alone the lines of "which is backed by tobacco and industrial food industries".
It looks to me like one-sided skepticism of research based on funding source: total skepticism of things industry funded and zero skepticism of government/NGO funded work being the usual case. the former will tend to understate harms in an environment where it knows anything it does will be checked over in detail by folks suspicious of their every motive, so they have to be at least somewhat careful; the latter will massively exaggerate harms in an environment where their funding level is proportionate to the degree to which they scare the public and where their findings are largely taken uncritically.
that said, I will be investigating the information bought up by Ed and you and would appreciate it if you point me to the source of statistics you are referring too.
Moataz,
ReplyDeleteAfter a brief Google search I found these articles that support my
argument:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=512
http://www.feer.com/international-relations/20098/september53/Life-Death-and-DDT
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/05/ddtworks/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html
I am not a biologist and have no expertise in this area, so please do your
best to gather enough facts to make the answer clear to you. It is clear
to me that those who support DDT use also wish to promote optimal human
existence; meanwhile those who support DDT alternatives wish to promote
the health of the "ecosystem" regardless of the consequences to humans, or
in the case of Earth First, because of the consequences to humans.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.