Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
And a lot of good. More good than bad in my opinion. Mankind has raped and violated the planet and we will likely die in our own filth because we were not more concerned and careful about how we dealt with nature.
|
Species go extinct. If humans don't get off of Earth, we will eventually go extinct as well, regardless of whether or not we leave a pristine Earth behind or not.
As for whether the environmental movement has done more harm than good, I think that remains to be seen. Was some correction needed to the level of damage we were doing up to the 1950s and 60s? Absolutely. Have the corrections that have been implemented really going to save the planet/us? Well we will see.
Quote:
P.S. DDT is only a minor issue in the age of the cosmos.
|
Tell that to the millions who have contracted malaria in the last 50 years.
Quote:
Oh and Ralph, I could care less about your degree particularly since you don't work in the field and are clearly biased on this issue.
|
In this case, does bias mean disagrees with you? Or are you going to be fair and admit you might be biased as well? And which field are you referring to? The field health? Or Pesticides? Or Environmentalism?
Quote:
This book was not, is not responsible for malaria. If DDT had not been banned, what other results would we have seen? Difficult to say, but I suspect worse that what happened. As always there are many ways to deal with issues. We as a species must learn to live as part of our environment without destroying it. This book and the environmental movement have brought that to light, but I see little chance that we will be able to pull out of the nose-dive while those like Ralph deny both the ravaging of the environment and global warming etc. etc. etc.
|
Its hard to say what other effects might have occurred had DDT not been banned... But it is fair to say that banning DDT might have eliminated our one chance of eradicating malaria.
--
Bill