Re-wilding the internet into a more self-sovereign, creative, kind place. Husband. Dad. ❤️: 🦉, 🎮, 💻, ⛳,🎸🤘🏻. FID442

Did you ever read Silent Spring?

She talks about how insecticides, etc. should actually be called biocides, since the purpose is to kill life

I think we'll look at this era as madness given we intentionally poison all life and wonder why we have pest problems

I learned from the author of the BTC Standard we might have prematurely banned DDT and Silent Spring is specious 

We clearly do pretty horrible things to the environment. It’s sad one of the biggest environmentalist victories may be based on fabrications as it discredits all future attempts 

The “right” level of human intervention in the environment is a tough tension to grapple with

I learned from the author of the BTC Standard we might have prematurely banned DDT and Silent Spring is specious 

We clearly do pretty horrible things to the environment. It’s sad one of the biggest environmentalist victories may be based on fabrications as it discredits all future attempts 

The “right” level of human intervention in the environment is a tough tension to grapple with 

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring

The Farcaster formerly known as Kchamp. Books, beats, bodybuilding, bright ideas and beautiful things.

katherinechampagne.com

I'm pretty sure that bioaccumulation of fat-soluble chlorocarbons is a tradeoff worth avoiding.

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

It’s never good to have a silver bullet approach to a problem like this

But when you realize that back in the 60s/70s/80s many people may have lost their lives because of us global influence around this chemical….. idk

The wanton hubris in this situation to me feels like the EPA admin who just up and up banned DDT without engaging with any debate or research at all 

It wasn't a single casualty, it was *millions of casualties*. And I don't get the sense you would take it lying down if your kid died and you later found out it didn't have to happen, while all the while others were saying "sorry but like it was for the greater good, your kid is disposable in the grand scheme of things"

agreed, overreach on either side is bad, and we have no right to dictate other countries policies, but to say there shouldn't be a limiting principle on such a subtance... 

millions die from starvation every year. so we reduce subsistent poverty. this can still improve.

you're right that I would be furious to learn my kid was refused medical aid out of some ideological hubris.

what if, hypothetically, it was a glyphosate allergy? suppose it isn't acutely deadly, and I spend years, even an entire lifetime, dealing with failure to thrive, or worse?

am I absolved for disregarding these less sensational consequences, just to partly solve an intractable problem?

I'd much rather intervene with treatment, if not a direct cure. DDT is an indirect treatment. so all things considered, I don't think this is worth it.

but pedialyte impeachibly is.

it's not so much the silver bullet I'm looking forward to, but the wanton hubris I'd rather not revisit.

this feels like a trolley problem where the switch must be thrown so long as any single casualty must be avoided at all cost.

we should mass-produce antimalarials and educate/supply pedialyte. if that's infeasible, there's no way we'd be any better at controlling DDT proliferation, instead.