Or what about this "oops!" Well-fed, healthy American and Euro environmentalists worry about non-existent cancer risks from the use of DDT, which is used to control the mosquitoes that carry malaria. As a result -- duh! -- millions of unintentional deaths from malaria:
A study sponsored by USA Today determined that since the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) law took effect in 1978, approximately 46,000 people died in crashes they would have survived if they had been in larger, heavier vehicles.
Every year, up to 300 million Africans get malaria; up to 2 million die. Millions more perish from typhus, tuberculosis, dysentery, alnutrition, AIDS and other serial killers they would likely survive if they didn’t also have malaria.This mother put it well:
Were the United States hammered by malaria to the degree sub-Saharan Africa is, over 100,000,000 Americans would be infected every year and 500,000 would die – half of them children. Agonizing cycles of 104-degree fevers, body-shaking chills, convulsions, diarrhea and vomiting would leave many unable to work, for weeks or months on end, others with permanent brain damage.
Environmentalists are fond of pointing out the "unintended consequences" of human tampering with the ecosystem. But what about the unintended consequences of appearing to be environmentally righteous, but actually killing thousands or millions of people?
“I lost my son, two sisters and two nephews to malaria,” says Uganda’s Fiona Kobusingye. “Don’t tell me a little DDT in our bodies is worse than losing more children to this disease. African mothers would be overjoyed if that were their biggest worry.”
But was it really unintentional when there were plenty of smart, qualified people who could have (and in many cases, did) tell us what would happen if we implemented these morbid agendas? What should we think of those groups who demonized the voices of reason, calling them names (like corporate stooges and worse) and calling their motives into question.
What should we think of media who propagate every hyped-up press release by environmental groups and seldom put the subdued words of concern and reason in a favorable light, always attributing them to an "industry spokesperson," tainting their words by subtle -- and not so subtle -- rhetorical devices.
I know what I think of such groups. What do you think?