swansont Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Because spending their money on disseminating DDT in Africa will ultimately effect me, my children and our local environment and I f'ing well OBJECT. Preventing malarial deaths in an over populated Africa does not justify the long term adverse impacts of DDT across the globe. The interests of individuals in Africa do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe. A pretty loathsome attitude, IMO. Your life is more important than others, so they can just go ahead and die. The point that seems to be lost on you is that I don't advocate the use of DDT. I know that it is an effective way to control malaria, but there are drawbacks. All I have requested of you is some kind of evidence and analysis that would allow me to draw a conclusion of whether it is worthwhile. I am swayed by evidence, but you have not been forthcoming with any. I am similarly suspicious of arguments that use emotion in the place of facts because it make me suspicious that you have an agenda. And here, it seems, we see what that agenda is. And more particularly the interest of soft westners who have an unrealistic abhorance of death, and who our out to make a name for themselves in charitable circles, do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe. You had better start getting accustomed to death swansont because before to much longer westerners will be joining africans in a higher death rate and a shorter average life span . In our case due to antibiotic resistant bugs due to our long misuse of antibiotics. I don't disagree that antibiotics are overused. Africans have coped with malaria for decades and they will continue to cope. It is not for westeners to tell them they should poison themselves slowly with highly toxic insecticides. And it's not for you to decide that dying young is better than allegedly slowly poisoning themselves. A fresh graduate from a BSc is not qualified to undertake research on their own either swansont, so your point is poorly made! They have to continue their studies with honours, masters and phd or, in rare cases, gain decades of research experience before they take the lead in research projects. Just as GP have continue their studies with a speciality at which point they may well engage in research relevant to that speciality. GP's and anyone else with a medical degree is a fully fledged member of the medical science community! One can study science and have a science background and not be a scientist. Engineers, for example, are not scientists, in much the same way that GPs are not scientists. They have studied it and apply that knowledge, but are not doing science. They are doing engineering. GPs are practicing medicine (and if they are doing that, they aren't doing research)
Klaynos Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 ! Moderator Note Thread closed pending a review and further moderator action.
Recommended Posts