I have done some reading on malaria and DDT since we had a discussion
based on Michael Crichton's (in my view) incompetent and mean spirited
analysis of environmentalism.

Here is what I have found so far - and it is relevant to Crichton's
attempt to blame "environmentalists" for the deaths of millions.

Briefly-

1. There has been an increase in malaria in many parts of the world
leading to substantial increases in deaths, for children perhaps
3000/day in Africa alone.

2. Many long term malarial remedies have become ineffective because the
parasites have developed immunity.

3. New and more effective drugs for treatment are more expensive, and
the US and other potential sources of provision have balked at paying
for them.

4. DDT sprayed on the inside of homes offers an extraordinarily
effective means for destroying malarial mosquitos.

5. South Africa, by using the above mentioned DDT methods and new drugs
has reduced malaria by 90 percent.  South Africa apparently makes its
own DDT.

6.  the US and Western Europe have also balked at providing DDT to poor
countries.  The reasons seem to be primarily due to the environmental
conflicts over DDT spraying of a completely different character in the
US and elsewhere.

7. Some people - probably mostly environmentalists - suggest global
warming is to blame.  This seems unlikely - it would only account for
the spread of malaria into new areas or lasting longer in some areas
where its existence has been seasonal - but the tropics have long had
this problem whenever there was enough water for the mosquitos to
breed.  Further, of the about 12% increase in malaria world wide, the
WHO paper arguing for a global warming cause apparently claims it
accounts for 2% of the increase.  That leaves about 10% that even they
cannot account for with that hypothesis.

8.  It is also the case that malaria existed in the US.  Philadelphia
had an epidemic in 1793.  We do not use DDT.  Malaria is a negligible
problem here.  Therefore it is at least in principle possible to
control it without DDT, though it is certainly easier to do so through
South Africa';s judicious use of it.

Let's start with the strongest evidence that might be marshaled to
support Crichton's claim - environmentalists opposed DDT spraying due
to harm to wildlife.  After the insecticide was banned, they continued
opposing making more.  Failure to use DDT to fight malaria, based on
what I have found thus far, led to many needless deaths.

To assign responsibility in a moral sense requires, it seems to me,
that the responsible party either knew the results of actions taken, or
should reasonably have known the results.  The latter case of
negligence is different in tone from the former case of not caring or
even approving the results, but responsibility can be said to apply
nonetheless.  They also should have had some reasonable opportunity to
change the outcome if they had acted differently.  For example, if
information about a problem is available to me, learning this
information will change my view of the problem, but regardless of which
view I have, I am unable to influence the outcome of the problem, I
cannot be reasonably held responsible for the problem's continuation.
I may in fact be working very hard on problems I think I can influence,
and so be ignorant of those I think I cannot because time is limited
and the world is complex so I must put my energy and attention where I
think it can do the most good.

Hardly any environmentalist knew that alternative methods existed for
using DDT to destroy malarial mosquitos.  Hardly any environmentalist
knew the status of malaria in third world countries.  Further, there
has been no public debate within the environmental or any other
communities that would serve to teach environmentalists (or anyone
else) what the facts currently are on the matter.  Those who have used
this fact to attack environmentalists have also used the falsehood that
DDT did not hurt bird eggs (as did Crichton).  Given that
environmentalists knew the latter to be false they had little reason to
explore further.

The deeper problem seems to me be the extreme polarization of politics
and policy discussion that has taken place in this country so that few
read more than one side of an issue.  (Witness the breathtaking
ignorance of the American public on whether or not Hussein had WMDs or
was dealing with bin Laden).  While both sides contribute, I would
judge this style of debate to have been promoted and perfected by the
political right.

My conclusion -

First, both environmentalists and their opponents share blame here, in
the first case through ignorance, the second through an inability or
unwillingness to make informed criticisms, but rather simply throwing
everything they can think of at their opponents, thereby encouraging
the other side to become rigid and unbending in return.  In this sense
Crichton is also responsible for the continuing deaths of people in the
tropics from malaria because any environmentalist reading his screed
would be left L:ESS likely to explore whether there was anything to the
malaria issue.  I only did so because Jim Tantillo said there was,

Second, the West did not prevent African nations or anyone else from
making DDT.  They did not make it themselves nor did they help other
places buy it.  While this led to needless deaths, the cause was
inaction rather than action.  As such, Crichton's arguments about mass
murder seem rather bizarre.  The effective methods developed in South
Africa and perhaps elsewhere are analogous to IPM in agriculture - very
selective uses of chemicals for highly targeted purposes rather than,
as was the case before the banning of DDT in the US and other places,
dumping the stuff wholesale all over the place.

Third, the West's failure to supply the needed drugs are also
contributory to the deaths of many people - and environmentalists can
hardly be blamed here.  It may well be that the West is basically
uninterested in the welfare of people in poorer places.  This is a deep
moral failing, but hardly one that is unique to environmentalists and,
I would be willing to bet, as a percentage of the population applies to
a higher percentage of people on the right than in the environmental
community.

Seems to me the above can be called into question only for errors in
facts or interpretation of the facts, or errors in ethical argument.  I
would be interested in learning of any of these.

Gus diZerega
Dept. of Politics
Whitman College
Walla Walla, WA 99362