Considering that most of the species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct, it is not surprising to discover that the demise of one more would not have any catastrophic consequences in the grand scheme of things.
We were well on our way to getting rid of mosquitoes, incidentally, until we banned DDT. Millions of dead humans are the very real consequence of that decision.
DDT has never been banned for vector control. It's been banned for agricultural use, but only after it was so overused that most agricultural pests had already become resistant to it.
The idea that there exists a worldwide ban on DDT for vector control, and that out-of-control malaria and "millions of dead humans" were the "real consequence" is a complete fantasy. And a rather disgusting one, as well.
Good point. I should add that some countries still use DDT for malaria control and any country that wishes to use it to fight malaria is free to do so, there is no treaty banning its use for malaria control.
However, many mosquito species are becoming resistant to DDT, so it is not really useful any longer. For example, India has greatly reduced the use of DDT because most of its malaria bearing mosquitoes are resistant to it.
DDT kills mosqito predators too and the mosquito predators are usually bigger more complex creatures with longer lifespans so it is much harder for them to evolve a resistance to DDT. Thus the idea that you could wipe out mosquitoes with DDT is ridiculous. Mosquitoes just evolve resistances to it. However, you could wipe out many bird species with it.
Particularly disturbing are the sites with comment sections where it's taken a step farther than this, resulting in one of the brain-diseased diatribes against 'liberals' and 'government'. Ignorance combined with absolute confidence is the dangerous hallmark of our political times.
It's interesting to me just what a hot-button topic DDT continues to be. It seems that the moment it comes up in any discussion of something like bedbug proliferation, there's an outbreak of collective guilt about bald eagles and expressing anything outside this guilt quickly turns one into Tony Hayward.
Not that I want to endanger bald eagles either, but I'd be interested to see a less politically-charged, more pragmatic debate on the potential advantages and disadvantages of reinstating its use in limited capacities.
Sure, but I value human lives much more than animal lives. Our best weapon against malaria causes collateral damage to eagles. It sucks for the eagles, but it's more important to prevent the deaths of millions of humans.
The whole bald eagle or malaria dichotomy is false. Any country that has an actual malaria problem can use DDT to control it, if they think it is effective (however it is becoming less and less effective, because mosquitoes are becoming resistant to it). Some of these countries still use DDT. The US eradicated malaria from our borders by other means long time ago.
In the US the debate about DDT was whether to use it as a pesticide. So the choice was about killing the bald eagles and most of our other birds, or slightly increasing pest control costs for farmers and people with lawns.
It affects other species as well. Also, eagles becoming extinct will have far more consequences than a few fewer birds in the sky. Since they are apex predators, everything below them in the food chain will be affected. And guess what's also part of that chain? Farms and livestock.
Ecosystems are complex enough that we have very little information on all the interactions that could happen. It's more than just a bag of organisms mixed together. A better analogy is the network of files and components loaded up during the boot process. Especially early on, each piece is crucial to what happens next.
Humans are animals. What affects (kills them)animals affects humans(kill you).
We have one weapon way more powerful than DDT. It is called intelligence and knowledge, things like controlling pools of water is way more effective that DDTing everything.
People with lack of intelligence or knowledge wants a magic pill that solves all problems without having to think, but this has an enormous cost. When I eat fish from Ebro Delta I'm eating DDTs thanks to them(they are forbidden but some people continue using them).
I would not rely on our "mass intelligence" to be our savior. The behavior of masses is dominated by factors which are far far away the 'rational' choices and the best interests of whole communities. This is why we always talk about "if only we all did X", and the reason everybody in the pub knows the solutions of big social issues ("the solution is so simple, just do X") is because people assume that we can control ourselves and behave coherently as a group.
Yet people find easier to think of the problem from the other side and think that a bunch powerful people who bend the world to their own interests. It is true, there are those people, their effect is significant, but they are part of the game, they cannot control even themselves and their peers, not even when it would be in their interest (as a group).
Eagles are just the most visible symbol of this degradation of the entire food chain/ecosystem. You start doing something that kills the top or bottom of the food chain, and sure enough, the rest WILL follow, including us.
Millions more dead humans would have been the consequence of not banning it, as well. Society can't just keep going on dumping tons of highly toxic poisons into the ground and water indefinitely without paying the toll in organ disease, birth defects and cancer - and we are. DDT aside, most bodies of water near high population and agricultural areas are increasingly resembling toxic chemical soups, with a grand mix of industrial waste, agricultural chemicals, human and animal pharmaceuticals, petroleum runoff, etc., and with the financial interests of chemical companies and attitudes such as yours, this will only continue to get worse.
We were well on our way to getting rid of mosquitoes, incidentally, until we banned DDT. Millions of dead humans are the very real consequence of that decision.