Amateur Megalomania

Both Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds got my attention this morning with some comments on this column from Nick Kristof on DDT usage in the Third World.

Some context –

If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia – not to mention other poor countries in Africa – there’s one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

I’m thrilled that we’re pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world’s poor – by opposing the use of DDT.

Malkin links to an article by Walter E. Williams –

In Sri Lanka, in 1948, there were 2.8 million malaria cases and 7,300 malaria deaths. With widespread DDT use, malaria cases fell to 17 and no deaths in 1963. After DDT use was discontinued, Sri Lankan malaria cases rose to 2.5 million in the years 1968 and 1969, and the disease remains a killer in Sri Lanka today. More than 100,000 people died during malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s, following the suspension of DDT house spraying.

Given the numbers above, one would think that saving lives is a bit more important than any potential or theoretical environmental damage. However, it’s relatively easy to find people who scoff at any potential solution to human misery that doesn’t 1) damn the US and 2) immediately transfer our ‘ill-gotten’ wealth to the Third World. Let me illustrate here -

Let me first congratulate [Kristof] for being one of the few stenographers of power to actually acknowledge that Third World misery didn’t begin on 26. Let me go on to publicly expose his seeming inability to recognize that declaring war on mosquitoes is not the answer. It’s a simplistic, military-influenced tactic that does absolutely nothing to change the conditions that allow for widespread poverty on a planet of abundant resources.-DEC-2004

So people are facing a very real crises of malaria, caused by mosquitoes, yet ‘declaring war’ on mosquitoes is not the answer? Perhaps the UN can mediate between the walking blood supply and the insect? Peace in our time.
The issue of widespread poverty is a completely different thing to debate (and I’m sure I wouldn’t agree with this joker given the opportunity to discuss it). I would think that the immediate need would supersede the long and tired ‘First World guilt’ argument. At least for the moment.

But the issue of DDT and malaria remains…or does it?

I will likely receive dozens of e-mails from those on both the left and right who worship corporate science and will lecture me on the efficacy of DDT. Little Nicky himself dutifully trots out a few enviro-types willing to accept DDT as a last resort. This hardly proves that this approach is safe or advisable…but that’s for another article at another time. What’s worse than specious science is the quick fix, white man’s burden mentality Kristof represents, in claiming, “our squeamishness about DDT is killing more people in poor countries, year in and year out, than even a once-in-a-century tsunami.”

Earth to Little Nicky: It’s not about the deadly, man-made pesticides. If more people in more countries had access to basics,like, say, clean water and a living wage, the conditions those people would live in would not be conducive to preventable deaths. If more people were not subject to the whims of corrupt leaders, World Bank policies, corporate imperialism, and oblivious Westerners, they’d not be in the position to have to deal with malaria-carrying mosquitoes…or tsunamis that arrive without warning, for that matter. If you want “one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives,” here it is: Wake Up, Asshole.

As tragic as it is, the tsunami is not the problem…in the long run. Equally, mosquitoes are not our enemy. It’s so easy to demonize nature, but if you desire a global society based on justice, our true enemies are those humans who work diligently each and every day to prevent such justice…and lapdogs like Little Nicky Kristof who are well-compensated to work in the service of the machine.

So the issue of DDT efficacy and appropriateness isn’t to be addressed in this post, which seems designed to call into question the efficacy and appropriateness of DDT. No, the real issue is the ‘white man’s guilt’ in the Third World. I get the impression that this guy is against DDT, so long as the resulting deaths can be laid at the foot of the evil imperial USA. No Blood for Talking Points! One wonders if the Left would change their mind if twenty years of malarial death happened in one hoorific day. Or are they comfortable with the steady ‘quiet’ pace of death spread out over the years?

I’m afraid that the First World is becoming entirely too risk averse. While DDT might have some negative effects, we fail to balance that appropriately against the potential good in using the product. We have condemned thousands to malaria and/or death for the sake of possible side effects like cancer. It would be better if the Third World victims of malaria lived LONG ENOUGH to have to worry about cancer. We have a tool in hand that can get the job done today, so we should use it. And by all means, let’s keep looking for better products.

I’m reminded indirectly of the recent problems with Vioxx and Celebrex. Here we have drugs that make a significant difference in the quality of life for thousands of patients, yet we are all too willing to cast it aside in the face of an incremental increase in the risk of heart trouble down the road. We seem to have lost the ability to make reasonable decisions in the face of data, and instead seek a completely risk free environment. It’s easy to condemn the beneficiaries of a drug or product for the sake of some unknowable risk. It’s a bit harder to step up and evaluate a risk/benefit equation.

If we don’t start taking the more difficult path, we’re going to condemn a lot of people to pain and death for the sake of our idealism.

Filed under: Economics