CRAIGforCONGRESS

Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives

  
 

 

 

Congressional Issues 2012
THE ENVIRONMENT
DDT



Congress should:
  • re-legalize DDT
  • demand that all entities funded with American money (U.N., NGO's etc.) cease prohibiting use of DDT to prevent malaria

DDT, aspirin, penicillin, and anesthesia are wonderful scientific inventions that make human life more enjoyable. Environmentalists would probably ban them all if they could, but so far, only DDT has been banned. This has resulted in needless death and suffering for hundreds of millions of human beings.


Prof. George Reisman:
      And this is why I call environmentalism evil. It’s evil to the core. In the environmental movement, contemplating the mass death of people in general is no more shocking than it was in the Communist and Nazi movements to contemplate the mass death of capitalists or Jews in particular. All three are philosophies of death. The only difference is that environmentalism aims at death on a much larger scale.
      Despite still being far from possessing full power in any country, the environmentalists are already responsible for approximately 96 million deaths from malaria across the world. These deaths are the result of the environmentalist-led ban on the use of DDT, which could easily have prevented them and, before its ban, was on the verge of wiping out malaria. The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.
      The deaths that have already been caused by environmentalism approximate the combined number of deaths caused by the Nazis and Communists.
      If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement’s openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation. (The policy will have little or no effect on global mean temperatures, the reduction of which is the rationalization for its adoption, but it will have a great effect on the size of human population.)
      It is not at all accidental that environmentalism is evil and that its leading spokesmen hold or sanction ideas that are indistinguishable from those of sociopaths. Its evil springs from a fundamental philosophical doctrine that lies at the very core and deepest foundations of the movement, a doctrine that directly implies the movement’s destructiveness and hatred of the human race. This is the doctrine of the alleged intrinsic value of nature, i.e., that nature is valuable in and of itself, apart from all connection to human life and well being. This doctrine is accepted by the movement without any internal challenge, and, indeed, is the very basis of environmentalism’s existence.
      As I wrote in Capitalism, “The idea of nature’s intrinsic value inexorably implies a desire to destroy man and his works because it implies a perception of man as the systematic destroyer of the good, and thus as the systematic doer of evil. Just as man perceives coyotes, wolves, and rattlesnakes as evil because they regularly destroy the cattle and sheep he values as sources of food and clothing, so on the premise of nature’s intrinsic value, the environmentalists view man as evil, because, in the pursuit of his well-being, man systematically destroys the wildlife, jungles, and rock formations that the environmentalists hold to be intrinsically valuable. Indeed, from the perspective of such alleged intrinsic values of nature, the degree of man’s alleged destructiveness and evil is directly in proportion to his loyalty to his essential nature. Man is the rational being. It is his application of his reason in the form of science, technology, and an industrial civilization that enables him to act on nature on the enormous scale on which he now does. Thus, it is his possession and use of reason—manifested in his technology and industry—for which he is hated.”
      Thus these are the reasons that I think it is necessary for people never to describe themselves as environmentalists, that to do is comparable to describing oneself as a Communist or Nazi. Doing so marks one as a hater and enemy of the human race.
      Whoever believes that it is possible to be a “free-market environmentalist” is guilty of a contradiction in terms. The free market rests on a foundation of human life and well-being as the standard of value. Environmentalism rests on a foundation of the non-human as the standard of value. The two cannot be reconciled. It’s either-or.
      I know that these conclusions are upsetting to many people. It’s got to be upsetting to realize that one is advocating destruction and death. But fortunately, there’s a simple and ultimately happy solution: just stop doing it. Stop being an environmentalist!
Our Own Silent Spring
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
"It is estimated that 800,000 children in Africa die from the disease every year, and as many as three million people altogether every year.
We know how people contract it: from mosquitoes. We know how to control it: kill the carrier mosquitoes. And we know what kills them: DDT.
So why has the war on malaria failed? Because governments banned the cure. Now they claim to wonder why people are sick and dying."

granitegrok.com

There are appropriate ways to apply DDT and there are inappropriate ways. Appropriate doses kill mosquitoes and not human beings.


www.tc.umn.edu

What the World Needs Now Is DDT
by Tina Rosenberg
"The move away from DDT in the 60's and 70's led to a resurgence of malaria in various countries -- Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Swaziland, South Africa and Belize, to cite a few; those countries that then returned to DDT saw their epidemics controlled. In Mexico in the 1980's, malaria cases rose and fell with the quantity of DDT sprayed. Donald Roberts, a professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., has argued that when Latin America stopped using DDT in the 1980's, malaria immediately rose, leading to more than a million extra cases a year. The one country that continued to beat malaria was Ecuador, the one country that kept using DDT."

It's Time to Silence Silent Spring | Keith Lockitch

"Health agency backs use of DDT against malaria" | Nature

Suffering in Silence: The real legacy of Rachel Carson - Reason Magazine



President Bush in his Saturday Morning Radio Address says: The truth:
America and Europe are cooperating to widen the circle of development and prosperity. We're leading the world in providing food aid, improving education for boys and girls, and fighting disease. Through the historic commitments of the United States and other G8 countries, we're working to turn the tide against HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa. And to achieve this noble goal, all nations must keep their promises to deliver this urgent aid.
The government bans DDT, which had virtually eliminated malaria, then imposes dictatorial controls on us to "turn the tide" against malaria.
Henry I. Miller on DDT & Schools | National Review Online
The Malaria Clock -- A Green Legacy Of Death
Misdirected Malaria Program Causes Disease to Spread
The Silent Pandemic
The Fruits of Eco-Extremism
Environmental Genocide | The New American
"Environmentalism" is Evil

 


next: Stewardship vs. Environmentalism