No its about an example of how environmentalism killed millions in the “past”.
True, we have other products toaday. But that is not the point
The point is that in the face of death for millions of people the environmentalist took the side of fish and a few birds.

Once again Mr. McJones.
I present verifyable fact and documentation when all you spout is opinion.
You basically have no case.

Psuedo issues ?

Like global warming where the science is still debatable but the left hammers it down our throats everyday as truth ? And you say that the death of millions is a psuedo issue ?
Also, I would like to see a report of fish dying because of the lack of baby mosquitos.
Objectivist ? Nice try but all that word does is describe every human on earth.
Also, sopher never claimed that DDT would completely wipe out malaria.
What he was saying, and the point that you miss again, is that millions could of been saved.

JMJ

The following quote also comes from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring: “The town is almost devoid of robins and starlings; chickadees have not been (present) for two years, and this year the cardinals are gone, too. . . . ‘Will they ever come back?’ the children ask, and I do not have the answer.”
Apart from being an embarrassingly overwritten line of crap, this is just pure fiction. The Audubon Society that was sympathetic to Carson’s claims, has stated that no extinctions or significant loss to bird populations came about through the use of DDT. “Of 40 birds Carson said might by now be extinct or nearly so, 19 have stable populations, 14 have increasing populations, and seven are declining.” (Easterbrook 1995, p. 82.) It should be noted furthermore that the seven listed as “declining” declined only slightly and not through any demonstrable link with DDT.

On the other hand, a malaria-fighter named Fred Soper, who supports the use of DDT, describes malaria in Egypt in 1943 this way:
“Whole families lying on the floor; some were just too weakened by illness to get up, and others were lying doubled up, shaking from head to foot with their teeth chattering and their violently trembling hands trying in vain to draw some dirty rags around them for warmth. They were in the middle of the malaria crisis. . . . There was hardly a house which had not had its dead, and those who were left were living skeletons, their old clothing in rags, their limbs swollen from undernourishment and too weak to go into the fields to work or even to get food.”

It is the environmentalists who have routinely protested hydroelectric dams, no matter the consequences, forget the fact that hydroelectric dams provide clean electrical energy and clean water. It is also environmentalists who have repeatedly campaigned against genetically modified agriculture, even though this agriculture is remarkably resistant to drought and disease. So it seems only fitting that it was also environmentalists who banned DDT creating a malaria resurgence which, in the form of millions of Third World residents, is killing and killing up to this very day.

Earth First! founder Dave Foreman:
“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere.”

That is a tiny taste of the humanity of environmentalism at work for you in the real world.

Here’s some more:

Robert W. Tracinski, former editor of The Intellectual Activist:

“Environmentalists seek to protect their de facto ban on logging by preserving the red tape that makes logging on federal land nearly impossible. But more than that, the purpose of the existing system, developed over the past two decades, is not just to bury loggers under paperwork. It is also intended to generate the kind of paperwork that stacks the deck against anyone who wants to put the forests to human use. As a San Francisco Chronicle editorial puts it, in ‘balancing the many competing demands on the forests,’ the existing system ‘puts a premium on protecting old-growth trees and sustaining fish and wildlife.’ That’s a pleasant way of saying that when it comes to deciding who has a right to make use of federal lands, regulators make sure that trees, animals and fish are first on the list. Humans are last.”

“But the most nefarious aspect of these existing rules is that they have been imposed with little meaningful public debate or discussion and little direct control by Congress. Past regulations have been imposed in the same manner that the new, less-restrictive process is being adopted: by executive-branch decree. The result of those decrees over the past three decades has been a vast environmentalist land grab, with millions of acres of land sealed off from logging, mining, grazing and even recreation.

“This is a basic technique used by the Left to achieve through the regulatory agencies what they could not achieve in an open vote. The technique is to introduce legislation to achieve some vague, positive-sounding generality, such as ‘worker safety’ or ‘environmental protection’—things no politician will want to go on record voting against. When the legislation is passed and a new regulatory agency is created to enforce it, that’s when the actual decisions are made about what specific restrictions will be imposed and which lands will be removed from human use. Governmental power is passed down to an army of minor bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people and only vaguely accountable to Congress and the president.”

“Consider that federal regulatory agencies make thousands of rulings each year, adding about 80,000 pages annually to the Federal Register. Do you think Congress can exercise ‘oversight’ by debating all 80,000 pages of these regulations? Do you think the president, his advisors and his cabinet officers can consider and personally approve all of these decrees? I doubt it. By its nature, the federal decree-issuing mechanism cant be controlled, and it has only one tendency: to impose more regulations and, by filling the register with such restrictions, to make private activities like logging come to a halt.

“These campaigns are proof of the greenies real motives. They want to stop development and keep the third world in povertywhile they work to bring the same ideal of poverty to industrialized nations. Most environmentalists embrace this goal, but few dare to admit it openly so they push a variety of ruses to hide their meaning ranging from ‘sustainable development’ to ‘shrinkth,’ a term suggested by the editor of Earth Island Journal as a less negative-sounding ‘antonym for growth’.”

I have much more on this subject if you would care to continue.
But as you can see I have educated myself to a level on the subject that goes past the tear mongering left,

JMJ

JMJ

Would YOU spray DDT on your garden?

JMJ

Where will they sing Kumbaya ?

JMJ