Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BillG]

DDT is known to cause reproductive problems in birds, but does not seem to cause problems in humans.

So what is more important, birds or human beings?

"canaries in the coal mines" - Police (aka Sting)

[RhythmStar]

DDT is known to cause reproductive problems in birds, but does not seem to cause problems in humans.

So what is more important, birds or human beings?

Neither.  The same biosphere makes the survival of both humans and birds possible.  Destroy the biosphere and both humans and birds become extinct.

RS

[Zack Bass]

So what is more important, birds or human beings?

Neither.  The same biosphere makes the survival of both humans and birds possible.  Destroy the biosphere and both humans and birds become extinct.

Dishonest evasion.  You might as well answer "Which is more important, libertarianism or socialism?" with "Neither.  The same biosphere makes the survival of both libertarians and socialists possible.  Destroy the biosphere and both libertarians and socialists become extinct."

It's them or us.  Declare yourself:  Do your loyalties lie with the humans or with the birds?  I know that when I see some swan raping my sister I just go beezerk.

[RhythmStar]

So what is more important, birds or human beings?

Neither.  The same biosphere makes the survival of both humans and birds possible.  Destroy the biosphere and both humans and birds become extinct.

Dishonest evasion.  You might as well answer "Which is more important, libertarianism or socialism?" with "Neither.  The same biosphere makes the survival of both libertarians and socialists possible.  Destroy the biosphere and both libertarians and socialists become extinct."

It's them or us.  Declare yourself:  Do your loyalties lie with the humans or with the birds?  I know that when I see some swan raping my sister I just go beezerk.

It is neither dishonest or evasive.  I simply reject the idiotic notion that, for humans to live, everything else has to die.  In fact, I say that for humans to live, a significant percentage of the biosphere must remain intact.  What is that percentage?  We do not know.  Is it wise to keep killing stuff until we find out the hard way?  Doesn't seem wise to me.

RS

[Zack Bass]

It is neither dishonest or evasive.  I simply reject the idiotic notion that, for humans to live, everything else has to die.

Why bring in all these straw men?  It's a simple question: "Which is more important, birds or human beings?"  Nobody said anything about death of everything, or dying at all for that matter.

  In fact, I say that for humans to live, a significant percentage of the biosphere must remain intact.

Well that's dead wrong.  Humans can and will survive in space habitats in the total absence of the Earth's Biosphere.  The Earth is just a rock we're learning to crawl out from under.  Get over it.  In a few thousand years it will be only a handy gravity sink where we can dump toxic crap with the assurance that the junk won't orbit around and bite us in the ass.

Of course, there will be tremendous variety in that golden future, and some sentimentalists will furnish their habitats with all sorts of biology.  Some idiots will even have mosquitoes.  But none of that will be necessary to human survival.

[BillG]

this conversation kinda reminds me of the christian rapturists who are cheering on any positive steps (Iraqi war?) towards armaggedon...

[RhythmStar]

It is neither dishonest or evasive.  I simply reject the idiotic notion that, for humans to live, everything else has to die.

Why bring in all these straw men?  It's a simple question: "Which is more important, birds or human beings?"  Nobody said anything about death of everything, or dying at all for that matter.

What do you mean by important?  Birds are more important to me than Saddam Hussein, inasmuch as I can't think of a single species I would extinct for his sake.   As a rhetorical question, I would probably see all the birds dead before my daughter, but that makes no sense without a context (unimaginable to me at the moment) where there was a clear-cut choice between all the birds and my daughter's life.  So, as stated, the question just doesn't mean anything to me.

  In fact, I say that for humans to live, a significant percentage of the biosphere must remain intact.

Well that's dead wrong.  Humans can and will survive in space habitats in the total absence of the Earth's Biosphere.  The Earth is just a rock we're learning to crawl out from under.  Get over it.  

Yah, sure.  Maybe yes, maybe no, but definitely not in significant numbers before my daughter has children of her own.  The more realistic bet is that her kids will have kids (and I'll be long gone) before there is a viable human breeding colony off-world.  You are like a caveman standing on the edge of a precipice saying to himself "One day, men will fly!", right before he leaps to his death.

In a few thousand years it will be only a handy gravity sink where we can dump toxic crap with the assurance that the junk won't orbit around and bite us in the ass.

Maybe the leaping reflex is evolution's way deciding which genes NOT to carry forward.

Of course, there will be tremendous variety in that golden future, and some sentimentalists will furnish their habitats with all sorts of biology.  Some idiots will even have mosquitoes.  But none of that will be necessary to human survival.

And none of it will happen if we poison the only known human habitat in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE before we can birth and raise a single child outside of Earth's environs.  Talk about getting the cart before the horse!

RS

[BillG]

Zack-

do you refer to yourself as a transhumanist?

[<Patrick>]

What do you mean by important?  Birds are more important to me than Saddam Hussein, inasmuch as I can't think of a single species I would extinct for his sake.  As a rhetorical question, I would probably see all the birds dead before my daughter, but that makes no sense without a context (unimaginable to me at the moment) where there was a clear-cut choice between all the birds and my daughter's life.  So, as stated, the question just doesn't mean anything to me.

     Want some concrete questions, then? How about these:

     Is the possible risk to birds and "ecosystems" from DDT more important than saving MILLIONS OF HUMAN LIVES by allowing people to use it to control malaria?

Yes or no?


Should the bans on DDT be lifted?

Yes or no?

[<Patrick>]

this conversation kinda reminds me of the christian rapturists who are cheering on any positive steps (Iraqi war?) towards armaggedon...

     Armaggedon? What do you have besides junk science to prove that we are going to have some kind of environmental "armaggedon?"

     Something like two million people die every year from malaria, this is a reality.

     What's more important, your green crusade or human life?

[RhythmStar]

What do you mean by important?  Birds are more important to me than Saddam Hussein, inasmuch as I can't think of a single species I would extinct for his sake.  As a rhetorical question, I would probably see all the birds dead before my daughter, but that makes no sense without a context (unimaginable to me at the moment) where there was a clear-cut choice between all the birds and my daughter's life.  So, as stated, the question just doesn't mean anything to me.

     Want some concrete questions, then? How about these:

     Is the possible risk to birds and "ecosystems" from DDT more important than saving MILLIONS OF HUMAN LIVES by allowing people to use it to control malaria?

Yes or no?


Should the bans on DDT be lifted?

Yes or no?

I do not have sufficient information to make that determination.  My advice to people in malaria-infested areas is to migrate out of those areas, at least until a solution may be found and applied. Who is forcing these people to live in these disease-infested areas and why does that constitute an obligation on my part?  

Here in CA, we have no DDT use, yet we manage to control insects and have one of the most productive agricultural industries on the planet.   Why can't alternative means be found in the areas you are concerned with?

You seem to want to use DDT more for political reasons than scientific ones.  

BTW, who is going to feed these millions you want to save?  US foreign aid?   How will they find work?  Is it possible that overpopulation or other factors are driving humans to try and live in areas where they simply shouldn't be?  Are we prepared to deal with Ebola-like diseases that are airborne, which may very well result from pushing human development into previously-uninhabited areas?   Wouldn't spending all that money on finding a vaccine for malaria be more effective, since DDT resistant strains of mosquitoes are bound to develop?

I have to say that I value life and do not make this huge, Chinese wall division between human life and all other life.  Humans are wonderful, as are birds, fish, and the complex web of interrelated species necessary to sustain them.   If we knew enough to be able to say "dousing this region with toxin A will save N human lives, but will extinct species B, C and D", then we could make some informed choices, like creating captive breeding populations of the at-risk species, applying the toxin to wipe out the threat to humans, then repopulating the area from the captive population.   Such an approach might be a way to serve all stakeholders.

How many human lives is one species worth?   Well,  as a human, I can't really say in a general sense.  I guess the passionate species-chauvinist would say that no non-human species is worth a single human life, but I do not agree.  OTOH, as a human, it depends on the life in question. Trade the life of my daughter for all the golden finches?  No problemo -- bye, bye birdie.  Trade the golden finches for the bottom-line of Dow Chemical or Monsanto?  No way, Jose!

RS

[<Patrick>]

I do not have sufficient information to make that determination.  My advice to people in malaria-infested areas is to migrate out of those areas, at least until a solution may be found and applied. Who is forcing these people to live in these disease-infested areas and why does that constitute an obligation on my part?

     It does not constitute an obligation on your part. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to ban the use of DDT.

Here in CA, we have no DDT use, yet we manage to control insects and have one of the most productive agricultural industries on the planet.  Why can't alternative means be found in the areas you are concerned with?

You seem to want to use DDT more for political reasons than scientific ones.

     Eventually alternative means may be found, but not until these countries industrialize and have the tech they would need to combat insects without DDT. In the mean time, DDT is the way to go.

     Places like Zambia have a long, long way to go before they could ever be on the level of a place like CA.

BTW, who is going to feed these millions you want to save?  US foreign aid?  How will they find work?  Is it possible that overpopulation or other factors are driving humans to try and live in areas where they simply shouldn't be?  Are we prepared to deal with Ebola-like diseases that are airborne, which may very well result from pushing human development into previously-uninhabited areas?  Wouldn't spending all that money on finding a vaccine for malaria be more effective, since DDT resistant strains of mosquitoes are bound to develop?

     So would you rather they died? My point is that the bans, backed up by govenment guns, should be lifted. Let people use DDT if they want to.
     As far as spending money on vaccines, let people do that, too. Drop the regulations. Lift the bans. Leave people free to do what they can.
     Same goes for aid. Don't use tax money to feed them. Let people send food if they want to, but don't force them too. Get out of the way and let people make their own choices about if and when to help.


     

I have to say that I value life and do not make this huge, Chinese wall division between human life and all other life.  Humans are wonderful, as are birds, fish, and the complex web of interrelated species necessary to sustain them.  If we knew enough to be able to say "dousing this region with toxin A will save N human lives, but will extinct species B, C and D", then we could make some informed choices, like creating captive breeding populations of the at-risk species, applying the toxin to wipe out the threat to humans, then repopulating the area from the captive population.  Such an approach might be a way to serve all stakeholders.

How many human lives is one species worth?  Well,  as a human, I can't really say in a general sense.  I guess the passionate species-chauvinist would say that no non-human species is worth a single human life, but I do not agree.  OTOH, as a human, it depends on the life in question. Trade the life of my daughter for all the golden finches?  No problemo -- bye, bye birdie.  Trade the golden finches for the bottom-line of Dow Chemical or Monsanto?  No way, Jose!

     No non-human species IS worth a single human life.

[Mike Lorrey]

The current age of extinction is a process that has been going on since the end of the last major ice age 10,000 years ago. It is particularly accelerated right now because of several factors, primarily the end of the Little Ice Age, a period of about 1200 years that we are on the tail end of. This Little Ice Age was particularly exacerbated by what we now know was a major impact south of New Zealand some time between 1000 AD and 1500 AD that left a 13 mile wide crater that was recently discovered.
It is thought that the object that struck was about a mile in diameter and lofted a rather significant amount of dust into the sky, enough to hold off the end of a minor blip in the Malenkovich Cycles.

[RhythmStar]

I do not have sufficient information to make that determination.  My advice to people in malaria-infested areas is to migrate out of those areas, at least until a solution may be found and applied. Who is forcing these people to live in these disease-infested areas and why does that constitute an obligation on my part?

     It does not constitute an obligation on your part. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to ban the use of DDT.

Bans are, in general, bad ideas.  However, when there is not sufficient prosecution of fraudulent claims by chemical purveyors, it is hard to say which is the greater evil -- the evidence on the ground probably depends a great deal on when you look.

Here in CA, we have no DDT use, yet we manage to control insects and have one of the most productive agricultural industries on the planet.  Why can't alternative means be found in the areas you are concerned with?

You seem to want to use DDT more for political reasons than scientific ones.

     Eventually alternative means may be found, but not until these countries industrialize and have the tech they would need to combat insects without DDT. In the mean time, DDT is the way to go.

The time when "DDT is the way to do" made sense is long gone, if it ever existed.  Cheaper, equally-effective means to attack the problem already exist.

Places like Zambia have a long, long way to go before they could ever be on the level of a place like CA.

Zambia need not have the technology to produce these alternative means.  Does Dow provide DDT for free?  If not, then why can't equally-effective pyrethroid insecticides be used instead?

BTW, who is going to feed these millions you want to save?  US foreign aid?  How will they find work?  Is it possible that overpopulation or other factors are driving humans to try and live in areas where they simply shouldn't be?  Are we prepared to deal with Ebola-like diseases that are airborne, which may very well result from pushing human development into previously-uninhabited areas?  Wouldn't spending all that money on finding a vaccine for malaria be more effective, since DDT resistant strains of mosquitoes are bound to develop?

     So would you rather they died?

All people die.  It is only a question of when and how.

My point is that the bans, backed up by govenment guns, should be lifted. Let people use DDT if they want to.

Whose government?  

Your position ignores my rights to self-ownership in my own body.  I do not want to become the repository for Dow's infernal products.  When the law properly prosecutes those who release bioaccumulative poisons into the environmment as what it is -- an act of force against the persons of those who do not wish to be contaminated -- then we can lift all the bans.

As far as spending money on vaccines, let people do that, too. Drop the regulations. Lift the bans. Leave people free to do what they can.

So long as they do not poison MY foodchain and pollute MY person, I am fine with that.

Same goes for aid. Don't use tax money to feed them. Let people send food if they want to, but don't force them too. Get out of the way and let people make their own choices about if and when to help.

Like Greenpeace?

I have to say that I value life and do not make this huge, Chinese wall division between human life and all other life.  Humans are wonderful, as are birds, fish, and the complex web of interrelated species necessary to sustain them.  If we knew enough to be able to say "dousing this region with toxin A will save N human lives, but will extinct species B, C and D", then we could make some informed choices, like creating captive breeding populations of the at-risk species, applying the toxin to wipe out the threat to humans, then repopulating the area from the captive population.  Such an approach might be a way to serve all stakeholders.

How many human lives is one species worth?  Well,  as a human, I can't really say in a general sense.  I guess the passionate species-chauvinist would say that no non-human species is worth a single human life, but I do not agree.  OTOH, as a human, it depends on the life in question. Trade the life of my daughter for all the golden finches?  No problemo -- bye, bye birdie.  Trade the golden finches for the bottom-line of Dow Chemical or Monsanto?  No way, Jose!

     No non-human species IS worth a single human life.

Well, here we simply disagree, as this is a false dichotomy at best.  Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than other life.  Instead of extincting lifeforms to promote the transient interests of a relatively small number of humans, we should find ways to satisfy actual human needs without requiring the wholesale destruction of the biosphere.  The bioshere is like our liferaft in the vast ocean of the Universe. Causing extinctions via mass poisonings is like poking holes in our liferaft -- poke enough of them, and we all go extinct!

RS

[<Patrick>]

Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than other life.

     You really think this?