More examples of unintended consequences from good intentions…
Forbes editor Rich Karlgaard writes about the ripple effect caused by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which launched the modern environmental movement and led to a ban on the pesticide DDT. DDT was accused of making eagles’ eggshells so fragile that they broke prematurely. But the termination of the use of DDT to control mosquito populations also led to a substantial increase in human deaths from malaria, which had mostly been kept under control to that point. According to the CDC, malaria now kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year (at least one million deaths total each year). Many of these deaths could have been prevented through widespread spraying of DDT. Clearly those who banned the substance were concerned with health and safety, but the effects ended up being disastrous for Subsaharan Africa.
On a smaller scale, but with a similar outcome of working against the very issue they are trying to solve, are Al Gore’s series of Live Earth concerts around the world in July. They are intended to raise awareness about global warming, but as far as I can tell, the only thing that will come out of them is a whole lotta greenhouse gases (though whether that’s a catastrophic problem is a separate issue). Yes, the event has a “green policy” for how they will try to minimize the environmental impact. But when you’re talking about nine concerts with 150 acts performing to at least half a million concert-goers and another couple of billion in the audience via various broadcast media, that’s a lot of trains, planes and automobiles, not to mention the electricity being used. I’m sure the concerts will be fantastic, and people will feel good about themselves that they are “doing something,” but I’m skeptical about sustained behavior change coming from people who are finally made aware of global warming because they went to the concert. If they are going to have any impact, the messages coming from the concert need to avoid screaming about how we’re all going to die and focus on just a few easy, concrete actions people can take. But perhaps having people stay home and make their own acoustic music would go further toward actually reducing carbon levels (though I don’t think anyone around here wants to hear me belting out “Roxanne”).
Technorati Tags: ddt, rachel carson, silent spring, forbes, live earth, al gore, global warming
Nedra helps nonprofits and public agencies create positive change on health and social issues through social marketing and transmedia storytelling strategies at Weinreich Communications since founding the company in 1995. She helps organizations make a difference for the populations they serve by strategically designing programs that draw on state-of-the-art behavior change techniques, digital media approaches and the power of stories. 
On a smaller scale, I attended a local environmental fair recently (as an acoustic musician). During the break, I went over to talk to a friend at one of the exhibits. He had lots of brochures about recycling. It just seemed wrong to take one, knowing I would soon have to recycle it.
… So, are KARLGAARD and REYNOLDS right? Did Rachel Carson cause more deaths because DDT was banned than Hitler killed Jews in the Holocaust? Is she, good intentions aside, the one person primarily responsible for the deaths of millions because she got DDT banned?
Not exactly … You see, DDT was never banned for use as an anti-malarial pesticide, only for mass use for agricultural purposes, although eventually many countries stopped using DDT as an anti-malarial pesticide. And with good reason, too. By the 1960’s many mosquitoes (and other insects) had already developed a genetic resistance to DDT which made it much less efficient as a pesticide that could actually prevent malarial outbreaks.…
read in full and be enlightened at:
Rachel Carson: Not a Mass Murderer
Nedra, have to differ with you on this one. But let me reveal my perspective first — so tired about all the nit-icking on Product (RED), American Idol, etc. At the end of the day, when organizations/causes end up with millions (or thousands) more than they had before, that’s great. Inarguably.
I feel strongly that these concerts, like Product(RED) will generate giving from folks who don’t give, will introduce issues — although not change behavior in a long-term way. As I see it, far better than nothing for these folks who aren’t donors or activists today.
Another provocative post, Nedra.
Alas, I’ve been reading in other places about the growing backlash against Gore’s concert.
I think there could have been other things the Gore-people could do to raise consciousness that would be more in keeping with their message. I remember several years in the 90s my wife received a tea-bag in the mail from a Breast Cancer Awareness Group (this would usually be in mid-May to coincide with Mothers’ Day). The message was something like “Make a cup of tea and drink it in memory of a mom whose life has been lost to breast cancer.” The promotion was tastefully done, and raised both awareness and money.
A carbon face plant!
My savvy friend Nedra is talking today about unintended consequences. Even when we try to get it right we in a way get it wrong — especially when we try to do it BIG!(more)
Great Article!
Otherwise known as “the revenge effect” I based one of my blog posts on a synopsis of the book entitled “why things bite back”. I’m attempting to tie lot of the cuurent social consequences together with technology in one category of my blog:
http://tenerife-training.net/Tenerife-News-Cycling-Blog/2007/09/the-voice/the-revenge-effect-why-things-bite-back/
Thanks. Dr. Leslie Brown.