Here's a cute story, overly dramatic but scientifically accurate (at least with the science bits).
April 27, 2006
Death by ecology
Dan Sernoffsky
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.
The great mass murderers of the 20th century had one thing in common beyond their predilection for amassing power and their utter disregard for human life: they, and the political 'philosophy' they espoused, was based on a premise of absolute control over the societies they governed.
But there is at least one more name that should be added to that list, and while she may not have shared the same meglomanical pursuit of power the others did, the result of her efforts created the unintended consequence of leading to the deaths of millions.
Her name was Rachel Carson, the patron saint of Earth Day.
Carson's book, "Silent Spring," became the manifesto of a movement that continues to result in countless deaths and untold economic damage throughout the world. Published in 1962, 'Silent Spring' posited that the use of the pesticide DDT threatened the extinction of birds (hence the book's title, no chirpping robins to welcome the arrival of the vernal equinox), and therefore representing a clear and present danger to humans and the environment. The outcry raised by the book ultimately led to a ban on DDT in the United States in 1972, similar bans throughout the world, and an overall demonization of the pesticide.
Ironically, even when the ban on DDT was being debated in the United States, there was an increasing body of evidence indicating that much of what Carson wrote was based on faulty analysis of data and manufactured conclusions. But the evidence that DDT was not the threat Carson portrayed it to be was ignored, and continues to be ignored. As a result, one of the most effective, and inexpensive, pesticides available is largely eschewed, and mosquito-borne diseases like malaria are exacting a frightening toll. Verifiable estimates put the number of preventable deaths due to malaria in the vicinity of 100 million since 1972, a large percentage of those deaths occuring in Africa.
The faulty hypothesis put forward by Carson and advanced by her accolytes has been expanded into a political movement that has incrementally been advancing its premise of absolute control over society. That political movement, framed as environmentalism, is essentially the latest incarnation of the totalatarianism of communism.
Despite the growing hue and cry over global climate change, the concerns about global warming, there is no hard scientific evidence that industrial society is at fault. Claims that "virtually all scientists agree" are spurious at best. What has happened is that those espousing such theories have become jealously possessive of their funding, which would disappear if their hypotheses were disproved. Therefore, they have been quick to denigrate and castigate any and all who disagree with them. They are winning the war of words and are waging a campaign of emotionalism rather than true scientific examination of the pertinent data. It has become a case of refusing to allow the facts to stand in the way of a good story.
The environmentalist movement, especially the radical environmentalist movement, is an elitist movement, made possible, ironically, by the technological advances of industrialized society. It is a basic truism that the more advanced a society becomes, the greater interest it has in its environment.
For all the ballyhooed rhetoric about the link between primative societies -- hunter-gatherers -- and their relationship with nature, the facts prove otherwise. The more primative the society, the more nomadic it becomes, prodigally using the resources at hand, then moving when they run out. And given the need for food and shelter, there is no real concern conservation, or the preservation of species. Prior to the introduction of the horse in the American West, a technological advance of sorts, Indians who relied on the buffalo would drive herds over cliffs, indiscriminately killing more than could ever be used.
It is only when societies become established in specific locations that a real concern for maintaining an ecologically-friendly environment begins to emerge, and only when societies become advanced enough to create new technologies to maintain a clean environment that pollution concerns are really addressed.
When the first Earth Day was established, the basic premise was that all would benefit by helping to clean up the environment, picking up litter, cleaning rivers and streams, finding ways to eliminate dumping of raw sewage and industrial waste into rivers. The original intent, however, has long given way to an agenda aimed at preventing further development and in establishing a new elitist ruling class.
Perhaps it is mere coincidence, perhaps it is by design, but Earth Day falls on April 22. That also happens to be the birthday of one V.I. Lenin, the man who established the Soviet Union and began a reign of terror that would spawn some of history's greatest mass murderers.
###
Dan Sernoffsky is an award-winning sportswriter and political columnist for The Lebanon Daily News in Lebanon, Pa. A career journalist, he is a graduate of Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ks., and attended graduate school at Central Michigan University. The father of four grown children, he and his wife reside in Lebanon.
[email protected]