Ddt : A Negative Stigma

2218 Words9 Pages
Pesticides have a very negative stigma in today 's culture. Monsanto, their GMOs, and countless pollutants have frightened the American (and frankly world) populace. As such, their benefits are accepted only with chagrin; modern agricultural techniques, despite being laden with the echoes of Malthusian pessimism, have allowed society to profit and proffer further progress. Narrowing in, however, the most celebrated villain is positively infamous in name alone: DDT. It would be hard to deny DDT is anything but an artificial product of a highly-developed society. As such, to study its implications is to meditate essentially upon the whole of like-minded technologies. DDT is genocidal in purpose. It is designed to kill insects. And yet, it preserves human life in ways that will be later demonstrated. Other pesticides continue to be used to keep crops alive and ensure food is not only present but plentiful. If shown effective are pesticides the solution to an ongoing problem? How much value does a human life have to morality, and how is it calculated in terms of developing an ethic? Is the indefinite preservation of human life in itself moral? How does non-human life figure into the ethical calculus? Is this moral? Put forward is this claim: if human life and the preservation thereof is to be valued by an ethical system, then DDT (and pesticides in general) are to be regarded as a moral good in spite of their faults because of the benefits they garner the human species.

More about Ddt : A Negative Stigma

Open Document