U.S. Malaria Donations Saved Almost 2M African Children
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The President's Malaria Initiative web site's About page [2] shows the extent of their program's impact upon lives protected by various measures they introduced. I imagine there might be manifold beneficial impacts upon the developed world as well, because the anti-mosquito-oriented measures do not distinguish between malarial versus Zika-bearing mosquitoes, and Zika is particularly economically debilitating in the developed nations.
[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(500000000*(2017-2010))...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/africa/mosquito-net...
I recently made it to (South) Africa for the first time. It was an incredible trip:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyKWylFkt/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BVtyq0flJvL/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BVty4K8FjBG/
I wish they/we could eliminate the malaria problem.
If the reason for donating the nets is to save lives, then this is no bad thing, right? Those people are putting the nets to the most effective purpose they can find for them. No problem, I say.
EDIT: OK, maybe these nets are suboptimal for fishing. Fine. If the people the nets are going to are in more desperate need of fishing nets than mosquito nets, and you don't want them to use mosquito nets as fishing nets, then you should be sending fishing nets instead of mosquito nets.
There's no honour in telling a hungry fisherman that the mosquito net he is using to catch fish is harmful to the environment. He doesn't give a shit. He either fishes with the net he has, or he starves.
- Mosquito nets have much smaller holes than normal fishing nets, so they trap almost all living organism, which is bad.
- The nets are treated with toxic chemicals which kills the fish in the ponds/rivers, and might be dangerous for humans who drink the water.
I would say it's bad.
Are we at fault for handing them out without proper education? Do they know that these nets are laced with poison? I mean if it only hurt the people who are fishing, maybe I could live with it but it hurts everyone (kind of makes me think of second hand smoke but worse).
Something they didn't bring up in the video is that a lot of fish (the net is indiscriminate) can help keep mosquito population in check. Just another thing to pile on the list.
Maybe we need to stop sending nets treating with toxic chemicals to that part of the world. This just looks like a road paved with good intentions.
Go look up pyrethroid insecticides and malaria and then contemplate whether you'd rather risk sleeping in a treated net all the time or be sickened at length or maybe dead.
For the same reason no one uses rubbing alcohol in an automobile. Technically it's a hydrocarbon but using it in a ICE will lead to poor results.
http://blog.givewell.org/2015/02/05/putting-the-problem-of-b...
Another analysis:
"A comprehensive analysis of 14 surveys in several countries with 14,196 households showed that that the overwhelming majority of nets were used for malaria prevention, and only 255 nets were repurposed (which make up less than 1% overall). Furthermore, the majority of the repurposed nets were already considered too torn, indicating they had already served out their useful life for malaria prevention[62]. The authors conclude that national programmes and donor agencies should remain confident in the appropriate use of bednets." https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2015/04/update-against-...
Fortunately Republican Congress members seem likely to reject[1] Trump's proposed 11% cut to the program[2], even if it seems mostly because it was setup under Bush, not because it is effective.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-foreign-aid-idU...
[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/05/25/52987343...
Even if you don't want to give, set your Amazon to smile.amazon and it will donate a very small portion of your purchases to the charity of your choice. It may add up to $50-$100 in money given on your behalf over time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_control#Proposals_t...
You don't create a self-sustainable economy by destroying human capital.
tell this to those whose children die of hunger because of climate change.
Thus: two million children saved, is two million pregnancies less. (To a first order approximation. As people get richer, all kinds of things change over time.) You are right in some sense: people are replaceable, and they will be replaced. But at a cost in resources and of course emotions.
Even if you only cared about the rainforest, and not about people at all, the smaller ecological footprint should warm your heart.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
"women want an average of nine, while men say they want 11."
Your pregnancy point is wrong though, so you say you save resources due to not having them start another pregnancy? Well the kid uses resources too and it does that at a increasing rate throughout the years. Once that kid has its own kids....you get the idea.
Unfortunately there never will be a global population control so all is left is this: upon a certain number we'll have a massive humanitarian catastrophe, most likely ending in the death of hundreds of millions due to starvation or wars. Not only will the environment suffer heavily, but once again humanity takes a step backwards towards becoming brutes again.
If less kids die in infancy, they will have less babies to make up the (negative) difference.
By the way, please have a look at http://economics.ucdavis.edu/events/papers/WuLeminJMPMalthus... and tell me what you think.