Killing Africans with "kindness"

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOu can look up stuff on the Internet as easily as I do.
There are insecticides that are (a) safer and (b) just as or more effective. If there weren't, we'd have endemic malaria in pretty much the entire Southern US.

I am unconcerned with whether you believe me or not. If you actually are interested, look it up. If not, just piss off, and find something new to bitch about. This 'DDT could save Africa if not for the Liberals' crap is at least ten years old. And it's bogus. Find out what Bill Gates' charity is doing. He;s smarter than you, richer than you, and is doing something other than bitch about the same tired old crap.

[Universe Prince]

YOu can look up stuff on the Internet as easily as I do.
There are insecticides that are (a) safer and (b) just as or more effective. If there weren't, we'd have endemic malaria in pretty much the entire Southern US.

You made the claim. You back it up. I'm not here to make your arguments for you. Nor do I have time to investigate every unsubstantiated claim and speculation I get told. You made the claim, and you fault me for not believing you, but you can't be bothered to back up your own claim. That is your fault, not mine.

This 'DDT could save Africa if not for the Liberals' crap is at least ten years old. And it's bogus.

Yeah, that is bogus. It's also not what I said. Learn to pay attention.

Find out what Bill Gates' charity is doing. He;s smarter than you, richer than you, and is doing something other than bitch about the same tired old crap.

Had I his money, believe me, I'd be doing something about it. I'm not where even close to his income level, so you'll have forgive me for not being able to fund the development if a vaccine. And if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed in the first place that my initial post was not about DDT. You're the one that decided to make a case out of it.

[Rich]

>>You made the claim. You back it up.<<

How many times have you asked him? Five? I don't think an answer is forthcoming.

I agree with you by the way. There's nothing about DDT that justfies millions of humans dying for the lack of it.

Screw the birds, save the people.

[Universe Prince]

Screw the birds, save the people.

My contention is that we could save both, and could have all along.

[Rich]

>>My contention is that we could save both, and could have all along.<<

I'm sure that's the ultimate goal. But if a choice has to be made, we should always choose human life first.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I'm sure that's the ultimate goal. But if a choice has to be made, we should always choose human life first.
=================================================================================
This applies is we mean people who are already born.

We could certainly establish colonies of humans in Antarctica, such as mining towns and oil drilling settlements, and eventually, the populations of such places would grow, just as mining towns and oil settlements in Alaska have grown. If this meant degrading the land and exterminating the penguins, that should NOT be the proper choice.

This is why so many countries have signed treaties banning such activities in Antarctica.

There are too many people on this planet to support with the resources we have NOW.

The goal of every business is to grow, to expand its market share.
Every business brags about always growing, always expanding, always glomming a larger share of the market.

The word for this in biology is CANCER. Possibly VIRUS, but constant growth results in the end of resources and the collapse of the population.

[_JS]

And they are?

Nicotine is but one example.

The World Health Organization Program (WHO) had already seen the success rate decline and even increase in many areas BEFORE DDT was ever banned. The problem was that the arthropods and other insects DDT was designed to target quickly grew immune to the effects of 4,4'-(2,2,2-trichloroethane-1,1-diyl)bis(chlorobenzene).

DDT, the miracle insecticide turned environmental bogeyman, is once again playing an important role in public health. In the malaria-plagued regions of Africa, where mosquitoes are becoming resistant to other chemicals, DDT is now being used as an indoor repellent. Research that I and my colleagues recently conducted shows that DDT is the most effective pesticide for spraying on walls, because it can keep mosquitoes from even entering the room. The news may seem surprising, as some mosquitoes worldwide are already resistant to DDT. But we?ve learned that even mosquitoes that have developed an immunity to being directly poisoned by DDT are still repelled by it.

"A New Home for DDT" by Donald Roberts, published August 20, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html

Research that should have been done a long time ago, imo.[/quote]

It was done a long time ago. This is not new. Belize has sprayed DDT indoors until 1993. It is a good vector control because it is a good irritant for the mosquito. The problem, which you seem to quickly toss aside by comparing it to saccharin, is that DDT is not easily metabolised by animals (especially humans). It has a half-life of eight years and it also has a cumulative effect. In other words it builds in your system. It is a weak toxin (unlike Nicotine) and insects build immunity quickly. The reason it works as a repellent is due to its irritability to the mosquito. The problem is that the indoors need continual spraying and it does not work as well on the African variants as it does on the Central American ones.

You mislead. You use the data from the initial use of DDT, which was amazing. But that was when DDT was really knocking out mosquito populations. It will not do that now.

I'm not arguing in favor of introducing massive chemical loads into any ecology without understanding the ramifications. I'm arguing there was a better solution to the problems with DDT.

And DDT was studied. It was never exempt from studying by scientists. In fact, as I pointed out it was used in Belize for many decades doing exactly what you claim should be done with it. More than that, Chinese scientists have been studying the prevention and treatment of malaria for decades and that includes DDT. Just because the US banned it (in a country where malaria no longer exists as a real threat) does not mean that scientists could not study the substance. You know that.

According to what I can discover, you're wrong. I'm not arguing it would have eliminated malaria or prevented all malaria deaths. But the evidence I can find says DDT was effective in reducing malaria cases, reducing the spread of malaria from insects, and therefore in reducing the number of malaria deaths. So I stand by my assertion that banning DDT outright was one of the stupidest things ever done in the history of mankind.

It was effective for the short-term. It was never very effective in the regions where most malaria deaths occur today. World War I was one of the stupidest things ever done in the history of mankind. Banning DDT was just doing the best with the science they had.

I would be most interested in seeing you explain what is racist about suggesting biotechonology and GM crops could help farmers in Africa produce more food.

Certainly. You're suggesting that Africans cannot decide for themselves and that Europeans and Americans make the decisions for them. You do realize that Africans have very talented Agricultural Engineers and capable decision-makers as well.

The problem lies not with the African scientists or European and American diplomats out for their nations' own personal gains, but with the IMF, World Bank and American and European Agribusinesses who have destroyed any chance that the African farmer has of competing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One problem with GM crops is that once they are planted, the spores can be easily spread to non-GM crops, creating a hybrid. If the country is raising crops for export to Europe, and Europe will not buy GM crops (Frankenfoods is the name given to these crops by those who oppose them), then Europe might well not buy any crops that might have been contaminated by Frankenfood spores.
\
Another problem is the way these things are marketed. The GM food is generally sold as a package: buy the seed from Cargill, the fertilizer fromCargill, the insecticide from Cargill. When time comes to sell the crop, guess who is the only party interested in buying it?  You guessed it! Cargill!

Seeds from this years crop will be sterile, or closer to sterile than other seeds, and again, the planter must buy the entire package from Cargill (or ADM, Bunge y Born, DeKalb, whomever). It turns the farmer into basically a puppet controlled by the party who developed the GM package.

[Universe Prince]

Nicotine is but one example.

At last. A name. Thank you. Using "insecticide as good as DDT" as a search term is not terribly effective. Now I have something I can actually look into.

It was done a long time ago. This is not new.

Then why the continued ban?

The problem, which you seem to quickly toss aside by comparing it to saccharin, is that DDT is not easily metabolised by animals (especially humans). It has a half-life of eight years and it also has a cumulative effect. In other words it builds in your system.

I'm not asking people to eat it. But again, I'm not saying DDT is the only answer. I'm saying it is effective, and we can find ways to use it property. Thus banning it not a good plan.

You mislead. You use the data from the initial use of DDT, which was amazing. But that was when DDT was really knocking out mosquito populations. It will not do that now.

I'm not misleading at all. I'm not saying DDT would have continued to do what it did initially. I'm saying its use was banned outright when it was still effective in places, and when we could have found ways to continue using it to save lives. I'm thinking trying to save lives is not such a bad thing. And the thing is, it can still be used effectively, and was so used in South Africa as recently as 2000.

Just because the US banned it (in a country where malaria no longer exists as a real threat) does not mean that scientists could not study the substance. You know that.

Actually, it was banned in more places than just the U.S. You know that. As best I recall, there is or was also a U.N. ban as well. So let's not act like I'm talking about simply banning it in the U.S.

You're suggesting that Africans cannot decide for themselves and that Europeans and Americans make the decisions for them.

No, I'm not. And neither is the guy who was interviewed.

You do realize that Africans have very talented Agricultural Engineers and capable decision-makers as well.

I have no doubt that they do. That doesn't change the fact that some African governments seem intent on preventing GM crops, apparently for reasons that are unsubstantiated. If there is an obvious link between that resistance and the resistance to GM foods exhibited in Europe, is pointing it out racist? I think it is not. If I say American farmers can benefit from GM crops, this is not racist, at least I don't see how it would be. If I say African farmers can benefit from GM crops, this is racist in what way? Can I leave the modifier off and just say farmers can benefit from GM crops? This is true, as best I can tell, regardless of where the farmers are. So if I say farmers should be allowed to use GM crops, is that wrong? Is it racist? I think it is not. If I'm wrong, tell me why.

The problem lies not with the African scientists or European and American diplomats out for their nations' own personal gains, but with the IMF, World Bank and American and European Agribusinesses who have destroyed any chance that the African farmer has of competing.

I don't completely agree, but you won't get a lot of argument from me on that point either. Farmers, everywhere, could benefit if subsidies and tariffs and other artificial trade barriers were eliminated.

[Universe Prince]

Seeds from this years crop will be sterile, or closer to sterile than other seeds, and again, the planter must buy the entire package from Cargill (or ADM, Bunge y Born, DeKalb, whomever). It turns the farmer into basically a puppet controlled by the party who developed the GM package.

You realize this is a result of the opposition to GM food and to the crosspollination you were talking about, right? I know you want to make this about greedy corporations, but without the irrational opposition to GM foods, there is no need for making this year's GM crops sterile.