It happened to me last Winter semester at BYU (the location is significant). Consider this a warning that there is some mild language--none that is beyond what is PG-appropriate, but not language that I typically use around my grandmother. Just be warned. Also, it runs a bit long. Sorry--not really though.
---
On Tuesday in my Biology class I gave a presentation on DDT and malaria in Africa. For those of you unfamiliar with the situation, malaria is a mosquito-borne disease prevalent in most tropical/sub-tropical climates of the world and is most common in sub-Saharan Africa where I served my mission. Its symptoms are primarily flu-like, but when left untreated, severe neurological problems result, often leading to death. Estimates put annual infections of malaria somewhere between 250 million to 500 million, resulting in over one million deaths each year, the majority of which strike African children. During my time in Africa, I met and administered to hundreds of people who were infected, including a fellow American missionary. I've seen its ravaging influence first hand and can attest to its devastating affect on the African people. Here are the faces of some small victims of malaria that I met while in Zambia.
Now back in the 1940s, American scientists developed a pesticide called DDT that proved to be extremely effective at killing mosquitoes, and thus also effectively stemmed the diseases they transmitted, such as malaria and typhus. It was used ubiquitously during the 40s and 50s, with many people praising it as a godsend, a miracle pesticide! In that period, scientists found DDT so effective at killing mosquitoes, that the diseases they transmitted were nearly eradicated.
However, in 1962, naturalist author and environmental activist Rachel Carson published her book "Silent Spring" in which she castigates DDT as "an elixir of death". She argued that DDT was killing off many birds of prey and that it was imperative that people stop using it. You see, DDT was seeping into the soil and water sources and was being stored in the fat cells of fish. Predatory birds, such as the bald eagle or the peregrine falcon, were then eating the fish, overdosing on DDT and keeling over dead. Soon, environmentalists caught-on, lobbied DC and international green organizations like Greenpeace and, in 1972, America led the way in banning the use of DDT globally.
The immediate affects seemed beneficial and we all gave ourselves a big pat on the back for protecting these birds. After all, who with a heart would advocate the extinction of the eagle or falcon? But soon the real effects began to manifest and malaria outbreaks began to rise... and rise... and rise. Without DDT to mitigate the spread of malaria, infections skyrocketted to terrible proportions. Thanks to Rachel Carson, the peregrine falcon survives while literally tens of millions of people have lost their lives to a disease that should not even exist anymore.
Ironic, really, that it was Carson who coined the term "elixir of death". While DDT may have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands or birds, Carson and her devout environmentalist followers are directly responsible for tens of millions of deaths of humans, predominantly Africans.
Choose your word: slaughter, extermination, genocide, holocaust. All are fitting, but I think ecogenocide does it best.
After my presentation, a sassy young chap (I'll call him "Steve" for the sake of telling the story; I really don’t know his name) piped up in his indoctrinated, condescending tone in defense of Carson.
"Don't you think we could find a solution that doesn't destroy the environment?" he chimed.
"Well, the solution was actually already found in DDT as, in the sixty years since its development, no other better option has arisen or even come close. Meanwhile, the genocide continues while the Prius-driving enviro-Nazis continue to decry any use of the panacea/pesticide as administering death to birds of prey."
Perhaps I didn't answer in the most diplomatic way, but after seeing the carnage to the African families I had grown to love during my time there, I had little tolerance for enablers of the biological slaughter.
---Two days later---
I show up in class for our Thursday lecture to a sweet, attractive girl giving a presentation on how global warming is affecting the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. Being a skeptic on the merits of global warming, I approached the topic dubiously, but fairly.
At the conclusion of her presentation, I raised my hand and asked: "How do we know that global warming is the primary cause of this 'coral bleaching?' Haven't global temperatures fluctuated over the past centuries? And considering the Great Barrier Reef's continued existence, wouldn't evidence suggest that it has developed a means to adapt and adjust according to the changes in temperature over that period?"
A fair question, to boot. It did not attempt to debunk the theory of global warming, but simply called into question its affect on the reef specifically.
Almost immediately, little Rocco starts yelping at me about how global warming is a fact and every reputable scientist agrees that its a serious and pressing threat to the World, and blah blah blah blah blah. All the same hackneyed "Inconvenient Truth" talking points you hear re-hashed again and again every time the subject comes up.
Initially I wasn't phased by his irksome chirping, but instead continued to listen as the class discussed the idea, even providing plausible answers addressing my question. Thankfully, other class members respected my question as one being both sincere and valid to the topic at hand.
The discussion continued as the presenter fielded more questions, some more pertinent than others, but all were civil and respectful nonetheless. Finally, I raised my hand to ask another question:
"As you mentioned in your presentation," I began, "Australia has not done much if anything to stop this from getting worse. Does that mean that they are not concerned about it, despite the deleterious economic and physical ramifications you're describing? Or do they just not believe it is a serious threat?"
Another fair question, one specifically designed to get to the reasoning behind the inaction of the Australian government.
Suddenly--in an awkward flurry--Rocco stares right at me, and in an elevated and down-right sassy tone, pipes up again without even being called upon to speak.
"Well,” his voice quivering in agitation, “why doesn't Africa do anything about malaria?!"
I assume that this strange outburst was to suggest that Australia is just as powerless to protect their coastal environment as African nations are in fighting a disease that's already been cured. But by so doing, he was now treading on sensitive territory and I responded loudly; I’d had enough of the chihuahua’s crap. With the class’s full attention, I began:
"First of all, Australia is a first-world nation with the means and prowess that go along with it; African nations lack the resources and influence to realize such a solution."
Feeling my pulse increasing and my face getting flushed from the rising anger, I continued further elevating my voice, being possessed with the knowledge that I was both in the right and in complete control:
"And secondly," my voice getting louder still, "obviously you and the BASTARDS at Greenpeace don't give a DAMN about the 800,000 African children they're killing every year!"
Stunned and shaken, Rocco took a second before shooting back with a profound, "Yeah, well... you're a jackass!!"
At which point, my professor stood up and half-laughing said, "I think that will do it for the discussion today..."
