Staying alive today trumps all other concerns, in most cases. To that extent, a bias toward short-term thinking is both normal and natural. The important point is that, while an excessive present-orientedness can jeopardize our long term prospects, short term thinking is not aberrant thinking. This matters because it implies that we can never rest in our efforts to push folks to see the follies of an excessive present-orientedness. Its a problem that we should not expect to see "solved", but rather should see as perpetual.
This is why ecologists are precious to society--there is a genuine value to thinking ecologically (paying attention to context and to consequence). And people who are good at thinking ecologically will be necessary to each generation. Throughout time. This is one of those phenomena that we will never "solve", but rather are constrained to engage on an on-going basis. If we do evolve to be superior creatures, it will be millennia from now. All this is in response to Bill's lament about the lack of a "solution to the problem of getting society to balance short-term benefits against long-term consequences." The reason we had to invent adaptive management is because there is genuinely a class of problems that will never be "solved" but which must continuously be engaged. (See, for instance, Rittel and Webber on "wicked problems" <http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/Rittel+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf>.) People that propagate the use of DDT fall into two categories, it seems to me. There are those who are guilty of making incomplete descriptions, and there are those who are ideologically opposed to the regulatory framework that emerged out of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. The former are, I suspect, blinkered by the manifest urgency of saving human lives that are being needlessly lost, and genuinely fail to see the long-term consequences of a renewed use of DDT. The latter group, however, is likely not open to persuasion. The best we can do is to act as a counter-weight in an effort to balance the whole. That's the price for having learned to think ecologically. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth At 12:41 PM +0100 8/23/07, William Silvert wrote: >Ashwani raises a good and valid point, but one which also needs to be debated >on a broader scale. There are many things we do which will have long-term >consequences and we tend to ignore them. One clear and very long-term example >is the disposal of radioactive wastes, but what about PCBs and dioxins? Lead? >Mercury? Depletion of fossil fuels? Drug resistance fostered by heavy use of >antibiotics? Society tends not to take a long view, and I am not sure that >dealing with these issues on a chemical by chemical basis is the most >effective approach. Itis hard to see any solution to the problem of getting >society to balance short-term benefits against long-term consequences. > >Bill Silvert > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashwani Vasishth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:18 PM >Subject: Re: Mosquito control, DDT etc. - boundaries and scales > >>This on-going debate over the use of DDT to check the spread of malaria is >>really a debate over boundaries and scales. Different spatial, temporal and >>organizational boundaries around what each side thinks is the proper "problem >>space" are what make two quite opposing conclusions valid. >> >>We can bound the problem space to the hut in question, at the time-scale of a >>mosquito's life span or to the life cycle of malarial infection, and in the >>limited context of "malaria control" that reduces the number of deaths from >>infection, and come to the conclusion that using DDT in specific cases (the >>so-called "indoor use" strategy--which assumes that DDT ceases to exist once >>it has been sprayed on walls and has done its job of repelling mosquitos) >>makes sense. >> >>We can alternatively bound the problem space to the level of the ecosphere, >>at the time scale of decades or centuries (which sees that DDT continues to >>work long after it has "done its job" of repelling mosquitos), and in the >>broader context of organisms other than mosquitos (such as women who develop >>breast cancer, or seabirds that lay eggs without shells, or sex reversal in >>fish, or the adverse impacts on polar bears or penguins), and come to the >>clear conclusion that this is not at all a good idea. >> >>Saying that using DDT is not a good idea is not at all the same thing as >>saying lets not be bothered about the horrific number of infants and adults >>who succumb to malaria each year. We must indeed act forcefully to check >>this manageable disease, but we must act in a way that takes account of >>ecological context and ecospheric consequence. >> >>Cheers, >>- >> Ashwani >> Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 >> http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ >> http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth >> >> >>At 10:36 PM -0400 8/21/07, Jane Shevtsov wrote: >>>Interesting. I just read about bednets with permethrin included in the >>>fabric being very effective in malaria prevention. Unlike nets that are >>>simply soaked in insecticide, or DDT sprayed in homes, these nets last >>>several years without needing recharging or replacement. >>> >>>I realize that malaria is a much bigger health concern in Africa than >>>persistent pesticides are, but have any measurements been made of DDT >>>concentrations in the tissues of people who live in treated houses? I >>>suspect this would be most important for women. >>> >>>Jane
