There’s a few arguments here I really like, alongside others I disagree with.
The best one in my opinion is that GiveWell should include the carbon cost of producing bednets in its cost-effectiveness analysis of the Against Malaria Foundation. After spending 10 minutes estimating that cost, it seems like it might increase the cost of saving a life by a few hundred bucks:
How much carbon does a bednet produce? I can’t find any sources on the carbon footprint of a single bednet, but the carbon footprint of a plastic bag is 1.58kg. Let’s use that as a baseline.
How many bednets does it take to save a life with AMF? GiveWell’s CEA says each bednet costs ~$5. (It’s unclear whether this is the cost of purchasing a bednet or the cost of purchasing + distributing. I’ll assume the latter because otherwise we’d need to guess the latter, though this assumption increases the estimated carbon footprint.) Saving one life costs $3900 - $9000 depending on the country, so that means saving a life with AMF takes roughly ~1,000 bednets.
What is the carbon footprint of saving a life with AMF? Given the assumptions above, saving a life with AMF would produce 1.58 tons of carbon = 1.58kg * 1,000 bednets.
What is the social cost of carbon? This recent study estimates the social cost of a ton of carbon as $112. This is a central estimate, not a high-end estimate. More importantly, it incorporates annual time discounting of 3%, where longtermists would advocate 0%.
What is the social cost of saving a life with AMF? Given the assumptions above, saving a life with AMF would create a social cost of carbon of $178 = 1.58 tons * $112 SCC / ton.
This calculation implies that the cost of saving a life with AMF is 2% − 4% higher than reported by GiveWell after accounting for the carbon cost of producing bednets. If true, this seems important enough to include in GiveWell’s CEA. However, this comes with the extremely strong caveat that this calculation makes several large assumptions which could be improved upon with more research.
Apparently this group is working on making bednets from recycled material, which would reduce the carbon footprint and could reduce this already-small impact.
The author also recommends quantifying the impacts of fishing with bednets (on wildlife and human health) and improper disposal of bednets (burning them can release microplastics into the air, link to discussion of impact). These both seem more speculative and difficult to quantify, and while I’d welcome attempts to do so, I don’t really fault GiveWell for excluding them.
during the past decades, the massively increased toxic load of (forever) chemicals is leading to a reduction in the human immune response (source) and human fertility (source), both of which are existential risks if they go so far as to reduce our ability to survive pandemic viruses and if our ability to reproduce dips below a certain tipping point.
This would be very important if true, but I’m skeptical without a stronger affirmative case.
There seems to be an inherent tension here between various branches of the EA movement – those focussed more on altruistic actions in the here and now, and those focussed more on longtermism, future generations, and existential risks. What matters, I feel, is that the dialog is kept open and the most recent science listened to. It is neither helpful nor rational to become so invested in a solution that we cannot pivot away from it when the science changes or becomes clearer.
This is a great nod to the problem of moral cluelessness in this context. Some interventions that are near-term beneficial but long-term questionable, making cost-effectiveness analysis very difficult. You point to some inherently long-term environmental harms, and it’s worth thinking about those kinds of long-term harms even if they’re tough to quantify.
Final meta point: You mentioned that you wrote this post as part of an EA fellowship. I’m really glad the fellowship is fostering such thoughtful engagement with the EA community. While you might not agree with every EA view, I would hope that EAs can convince you of their arguments over time, and can learn something from you as well. I really don’t appreciate the downvotes without discussion on this substantive post from someone who seems new to the community, and going forwards I hope you find this site to be a kind and constructive place for discussion. Cheers.
Thank you for your kind remarks. It was very hard for me to put this out into the forum, knowing that it would probably attract some serious pushback, but I felt I had to.
Here are some more references for you to further substantiate the problem of infertility and immunosuppression and the thereby associated x-risks. (There is an awful lot of research out there on this topic, this is just a rough selection.) Since the harm of extinction (in this particular case via toxin burden-induced infertility and/or reduced immune response) can generally be considered many orders of magnitude higher than the harm of any other risk, due to the enormous number of future lives lost, anything which can be considered an x-risk must be thoroughly researched and quantified before it can be dismissed out of hand.
PFAS Environmental Pollution and Antioxidant Responses: An Overview of the Impact on Human Field
Abstract
Due to their unique properties, perfluorinated substances (PFAS) are widely used in multiple industrial and commercial applications, but they are toxic for animals, humans included. This review presents some available data on the PFAS environmental distribution in the world, and in particular in Europe and in the Veneto region of Italy, where it has become a serious problem for human health. The consumption of contaminated food and drinking water is considered one of the major source of exposure for humans. Worldwide epidemiological studies report the negative effects that PFAS have on human health, due to environmental pollution, including infertility, steroid hormone perturbation, thyroid, liver and kidney disorders, and metabolic disfunctions. In vitro and in vivo researches correlated PFAS exposure to oxidative stress effects (in mammals as well as in other vertebrates of human interest), produced by a PFAS-induced increase of reactive oxygen species formation. The cellular antioxidant defense system is activated by PFAS, but it is only partially able to avoid the oxidative damage to biomolecules.
Purpose: To test whether environmental pollutants could affect fertility in humans.
Methods: 31 women and 16 men from Tanzania and 21 couples from Germany were included (n=89). Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls were measured in serum, follicular fluid or seminal plasma by gaschromatography and related to sperm quality and pregnancy rates.
Results: Higher concentrations of DDT+DDE and dieldrin in Tanzania and higher concentrations of PCBs in Germany and in men were detected. All compounds showed higher concentrations in serum and lowest concentrations in seminal plasma. A lower pregnancy rate in German women with high serum concentrations of DDT+DDE was observed. The toxins had no impact on sperm quality.
Conclusions: The distribution of toxins between agricultural and industrial countries is different. Seminal plasma seems to be inert against chemicals. In patients with high serum concentrations of DDT and DDE pregnancy rates were impaired.
Abstract: Global chemical contamination is an underexplored source of global catastrophic risks that is estimated to have low a priori probability. However, events such as pollinating insects’ population decline and lowering of the human male sperm count hint at some toxic exposure accumulation and thus could be a global catastrophic risk event if not prevented by future medical advances. We identified several potentially dangerous sources of the global chemical contamination, which may happen now or could happen in the future: autocatalytic reactions, exposure to multiple subthreshold sources, and long-term unintended consequences, arising from both natural and bioengineered sources. We list several especially dangerous chemicals—dioxin, organiс compounds, and toxic heavy metals. We also discuss the features of such dangerous chemicals—molecules that can stay in the biosphere for a long time and affect it over time. We explore several social processes and scenarios where global chemical contamination becomes possible: large natural catastrophe like meteorite impact, supervolcano eruption, new ways of predicting properties of the chemicals via machine learning and their manufacturing via synthetic biology, uncontrolled “capitalistic” economic development with a corresponding large waste production, quick adoption of many chemicals with unknown long-term properties and unintended side-effects. These are all low probability, so work on other global catastrophic risks should be prioritized, but chemical risks could exacerbate other types of catastrophe contributing to social collapse
Impact of Pesticides as Organic Micro-Pollutants on the Environment and Risks for Mankind
Abstract
Because of health concerns, persistence, and long-term environmental effects, the impact of pesticides on agriculture and public health has been the subject of considerable research. Organophosphorus pesticides exert their acute effects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system with subsequent accumulation of toxic levels of acetylcholine. Herbicides have widely variable toxicity. In addition to acute toxicity from high exposures, there is concern over possible carcinogenicity as well as other long-term problems. Improper use of herbicides may damage crop plants, especially if too large a dose is used, or if spraying occurs during a time when the crop species is sensitive to the herbicide. There are also apprehensions about the toxicity of some herbicides, which may affect people using these chemicals during the course of their occupation. The use of herbicides and other pesticides carries risks to humans through exposure to these potentially toxic chemicals, and to ecosystems through direct toxicity caused to non-target species, and through changes in habitat. People exposed to pesticides had over a fourfold increased risk to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neuroblastoma, child brain development defects, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, leukemia in children, male infertility and miscarriage.
Immunosuppressive effects of triclosan, nonylphenol, and DDT on human natural killer cells in vitro
Abstract
Human natural killer (NK) cells are a first-line immune defense against tumor cells and virally-infected cells. If their function is impaired, it leaves an individual more susceptible to cancer development or viral infection. The ability of compounds that contaminate the environment to suppress the function of NK cells could contribute to the increased risk of cancer development. There are a wide spectrum of compounds that significantly contaminate water and food that are consumed by humans, leading to accumulation of some of these compounds in human tissues. In the current study, we examined the ability of three such compounds to diminish the function of human NK cells. Triclosan (TC) is an antimicrobial agent used in a large number of antibacterial soaps. Nonylphenol (NP) is a degradation product of compounds used as surfactants and as stabilizers in plastics. 4,4′-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a pesticide that is mainly used to control mosquitoes. The compounds were examined for their ability to suppress NK function following exposures of 1 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 6 days. Each agent was able to substantially decrease NK lytic function within 24 h. At a concentration of 5 µM, both TC and NP inhibited NK lytic function by 87 and 30%, respectively; DDT decreased function by 55% at 2.5 µM. The negative effects of each of these compounds persisted and/or intensified following a brief (1 h) exposure to the compounds, indicating that the impairment of function cannot be eliminated by removal of the compound under in vitro conditions.
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Infectious Diseases: From Endocrine Disruption to Immunosuppression
Abstract
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are hormonally active compounds in the environment that interfere with the body’s endocrine system and consequently produce adverse health effects. Despite persistent public health concerns, EDCs remain important components of common consumer products, thus representing ubiquitous contaminants to humans. While scientific evidence confirmed their contribution to the severity of Influenza A virus (H1N1) in the animal model, their roles in susceptibility and clinical outcome of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cannot be underestimated. Since its emergence in late 2019, clinical reports on COVID-19 have confirmed that severe disease and death occur in persons aged ≥65 years and those with underlying comorbidities. Major comorbidities of COVID-19 include diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, and kidney and liver diseases. Meanwhile, long-term exposure to EDCs contributes significantly to the onset and progression of these comorbid diseases. Besides, EDCs play vital roles in the disruption of the body’s immune system. Here, we review the recent literature on the roles of EDCs in comorbidities contributing to COVID-19 mortality, impacts of EDCs on the immune system, and recent articles linking EDCs to COVID-19 risks. We also recommend methodologies that could be adopted to comprehensively study the role of EDCs in COVID-19 risk.
I’m certainly no expert, but a quick look at AMF says the bednets are treated with Pyrethroid, which is” usually broken apart by sunlight and the atmosphere in one or two days” (Wikipedia) This is let’s me be skeptical of whether incorporating the environmental and health effects really make a big difference. Furthermore, though again this is just my intuition, agricultural farming involves much worse doses of insecticides that contaminate streams and so far we have not observed any large-scale effects of environmental collapse or infertility that would justify questioning the cost-effectiveness of AMF. (I’m not questioning that our use of insecticides very likely leads to the decline of insects and diminishes fertility though, I just think that AMF is a tiny factor in this.)
Please do not cherrypick your facts regarding pyrethroids. The full information provided by your source is as follows:
“Pyrethroids are toxic to insects such as bees, dragonflies, mayflies, gadflies, and some other invertebrates, including those that constitute the base of aquatic and terrestrial food webs.They are toxic to aquatic organisms including fish.
Biodegradation
Pyrethroids are usually broken apart by sunlight and the atmosphere in one or two days, however when associated with sediment they can persist for some time.
Pyrethroids are unaffected by conventional secondary treatment systems at municipal wastewater treatment facilities. They appear in the effluent, usually at levels lethal to invertebrates.”
Malaria is a serious global health issue, with around 200 million cases per year. As such, great effort has been put into the mass distribution of bed nets as a means of prophylaxis within Africa. Distributed mosquito nets are intended to be used for malaria protection, yet increasing evidence suggests that fishing is a primary use for these nets, providing fresh concerns for already stressed coastal ecosystems. While research documents the scale of mosquito net fisheries globally, no quantitative analysis of their landings exists. The effects of these fisheries on the wider ecosystem assemblages have not previously been examined. In this study, we present the first detailed analysis of the sustainability of these fisheries by examining the diversity, age class, trophic structure and magnitude of biomass removal. Dragnet landings, one of two gear types in which mosquito nets can be utilised, were recorded across ten sites in northern Mozambique where the use of Mosquito nets for fishing is common. Our results indicate a substantial removal of juveniles from coastal seagrass meadows, many of which are commercially important in the region or play important ecological roles. We conclude that the use of mosquito nets for fishing may contribute to food insecurity, greater poverty and the loss of ecosystem functioning.”
Sorry for cherry-picking there. Seems like the insecticides really do have unintended consequences.
I am still skeptical of the effect though since Holden Karofsky says here that fishing with the nets seems pretty rare.
I think my point still stands though. While there will be some environmental damage from the nets, it’s very unlikely to outweigh the human lives saved.
I think the strongest point here is that it’s not at all clear whether the organisms in the streams that may be killed by the insecticides have net positive lives. See “How good is the life of an insect”
In any way, I encourage you to make a detailed investigation here to prove your point. I think there is a ~5% probability I would update that malaria nets are a lot less good than I thought.
The problem of moral cluelessness in the context of longtermism is definitely always on my mind in any EA discussion topic. It would certainly seem more research is needed to quantify the long-term harms.
There’s a few arguments here I really like, alongside others I disagree with.
The best one in my opinion is that GiveWell should include the carbon cost of producing bednets in its cost-effectiveness analysis of the Against Malaria Foundation. After spending 10 minutes estimating that cost, it seems like it might increase the cost of saving a life by a few hundred bucks:
How much carbon does a bednet produce? I can’t find any sources on the carbon footprint of a single bednet, but the carbon footprint of a plastic bag is 1.58kg. Let’s use that as a baseline.
How many bednets does it take to save a life with AMF? GiveWell’s CEA says each bednet costs ~$5. (It’s unclear whether this is the cost of purchasing a bednet or the cost of purchasing + distributing. I’ll assume the latter because otherwise we’d need to guess the latter, though this assumption increases the estimated carbon footprint.) Saving one life costs $3900 - $9000 depending on the country, so that means saving a life with AMF takes roughly ~1,000 bednets.
What is the carbon footprint of saving a life with AMF? Given the assumptions above, saving a life with AMF would produce 1.58 tons of carbon = 1.58kg * 1,000 bednets.
What is the social cost of carbon? This recent study estimates the social cost of a ton of carbon as $112. This is a central estimate, not a high-end estimate. More importantly, it incorporates annual time discounting of 3%, where longtermists would advocate 0%.
What is the social cost of saving a life with AMF? Given the assumptions above, saving a life with AMF would create a social cost of carbon of $178 = 1.58 tons * $112 SCC / ton.
This calculation implies that the cost of saving a life with AMF is 2% − 4% higher than reported by GiveWell after accounting for the carbon cost of producing bednets. If true, this seems important enough to include in GiveWell’s CEA. However, this comes with the extremely strong caveat that this calculation makes several large assumptions which could be improved upon with more research.
Apparently this group is working on making bednets from recycled material, which would reduce the carbon footprint and could reduce this already-small impact.
The author also recommends quantifying the impacts of fishing with bednets (on wildlife and human health) and improper disposal of bednets (burning them can release microplastics into the air, link to discussion of impact). These both seem more speculative and difficult to quantify, and while I’d welcome attempts to do so, I don’t really fault GiveWell for excluding them.
This would be very important if true, but I’m skeptical without a stronger affirmative case.
This is a great nod to the problem of moral cluelessness in this context. Some interventions that are near-term beneficial but long-term questionable, making cost-effectiveness analysis very difficult. You point to some inherently long-term environmental harms, and it’s worth thinking about those kinds of long-term harms even if they’re tough to quantify.
Final meta point: You mentioned that you wrote this post as part of an EA fellowship. I’m really glad the fellowship is fostering such thoughtful engagement with the EA community. While you might not agree with every EA view, I would hope that EAs can convince you of their arguments over time, and can learn something from you as well. I really don’t appreciate the downvotes without discussion on this substantive post from someone who seems new to the community, and going forwards I hope you find this site to be a kind and constructive place for discussion. Cheers.
Thank you for your kind remarks. It was very hard for me to put this out into the forum, knowing that it would probably attract some serious pushback, but I felt I had to.
Here are some more references for you to further substantiate the problem of infertility and immunosuppression and the thereby associated x-risks. (There is an awful lot of research out there on this topic, this is just a rough selection.) Since the harm of extinction (in this particular case via toxin burden-induced infertility and/or reduced immune response) can generally be considered many orders of magnitude higher than the harm of any other risk, due to the enormous number of future lives lost, anything which can be considered an x-risk must be thoroughly researched and quantified before it can be dismissed out of hand.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8020
PFAS Environmental Pollution and Antioxidant Responses: An Overview of the Impact on Human Field
Abstract
Due to their unique properties, perfluorinated substances (PFAS) are widely used in multiple industrial and commercial applications, but they are toxic for animals, humans included. This review presents some available data on the PFAS environmental distribution in the world, and in particular in Europe and in the Veneto region of Italy, where it has become a serious problem for human health. The consumption of contaminated food and drinking water is considered one of the major source of exposure for humans. Worldwide epidemiological studies report the negative effects that PFAS have on human health, due to environmental pollution, including infertility, steroid hormone perturbation, thyroid, liver and kidney disorders, and metabolic disfunctions. In vitro and in vivo researches correlated PFAS exposure to oxidative stress effects (in mammals as well as in other vertebrates of human interest), produced by a PFAS-induced increase of reactive oxygen species formation. The cellular antioxidant defense system is activated by PFAS, but it is only partially able to avoid the oxidative damage to biomolecules.
Distribution of persistent organochlorine contaminants in infertile patients from Tanzania and Germany, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10815-006-9069-6
Abstract
Purpose: To test whether environmental pollutants could affect fertility in humans.
Methods: 31 women and 16 men from Tanzania and 21 couples from Germany were included (n=89). Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls were measured in serum, follicular fluid or seminal plasma by gaschromatography and related to sperm quality and pregnancy rates.
Results: Higher concentrations of DDT+DDE and dieldrin in Tanzania and higher concentrations of PCBs in Germany and in men were detected. All compounds showed higher concentrations in serum and lowest concentrations in seminal plasma. A lower pregnancy rate in German women with high serum concentrations of DDT+DDE was observed. The toxins had no impact on sperm quality.
Conclusions: The distribution of toxins between agricultural and industrial countries is different. Seminal plasma seems to be inert against chemicals. In patients with high serum concentrations of DDT and DDE pregnancy rates were impaired.
https://philpapers.org/rec/TURGCR-2
Global Catastrophic Risks by Chemical Contamination
Abstract: Global chemical contamination is an underexplored source of global catastrophic risks that is estimated to have low a priori probability. However, events such as pollinating insects’ population decline and lowering of the human male sperm count hint at some toxic exposure accumulation and thus could be a global catastrophic risk event if not prevented by future medical advances. We identified several potentially dangerous sources of the global chemical contamination, which may happen now or could happen in the future: autocatalytic reactions, exposure to multiple subthreshold sources, and long-term unintended consequences, arising from both natural and bioengineered sources. We list several especially dangerous chemicals—dioxin, organiс compounds, and toxic heavy metals. We also discuss the features of such dangerous chemicals—molecules that can stay in the biosphere for a long time and affect it over time. We explore several social processes and scenarios where global chemical contamination becomes possible: large natural catastrophe like meteorite impact, supervolcano eruption, new ways of predicting properties of the chemicals via machine learning and their manufacturing via synthetic biology, uncontrolled “capitalistic” economic development with a corresponding large waste production, quick adoption of many chemicals with unknown long-term properties and unintended side-effects. These are all low probability, so work on other global catastrophic risks should be prioritized, but chemical risks could exacerbate other types of catastrophe contributing to social collapse
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1235-5_6
Environmental Security and Ecoterrorism
Impact of Pesticides as Organic Micro-Pollutants on the Environment and Risks for Mankind
Abstract
Because of health concerns, persistence, and long-term environmental effects, the impact of pesticides on agriculture and public health has been the subject of considerable research. Organophosphorus pesticides exert their acute effects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase in the nervous system with subsequent accumulation of toxic levels of acetylcholine. Herbicides have widely variable toxicity. In addition to acute toxicity from high exposures, there is concern over possible carcinogenicity as well as other long-term problems. Improper use of herbicides may damage crop plants, especially if too large a dose is used, or if spraying occurs during a time when the crop species is sensitive to the herbicide. There are also apprehensions about the toxicity of some herbicides, which may affect people using these chemicals during the course of their occupation. The use of herbicides and other pesticides carries risks to humans through exposure to these potentially toxic chemicals, and to ecosystems through direct toxicity caused to non-target species, and through changes in habitat. People exposed to pesticides had over a fourfold increased risk to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neuroblastoma, child brain development defects, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, leukemia in children, male infertility and miscarriage.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15476911003667470
Journal of Immunotoxicology
Volume 7, 2010 - Issue 3
Immunosuppressive effects of triclosan, nonylphenol, and DDT on human natural killer cells in vitro
Abstract
Human natural killer (NK) cells are a first-line immune defense against tumor cells and virally-infected cells. If their function is impaired, it leaves an individual more susceptible to cancer development or viral infection. The ability of compounds that contaminate the environment to suppress the function of NK cells could contribute to the increased risk of cancer development. There are a wide spectrum of compounds that significantly contaminate water and food that are consumed by humans, leading to accumulation of some of these compounds in human tissues. In the current study, we examined the ability of three such compounds to diminish the function of human NK cells. Triclosan (TC) is an antimicrobial agent used in a large number of antibacterial soaps. Nonylphenol (NP) is a degradation product of compounds used as surfactants and as stabilizers in plastics. 4,4′-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is a pesticide that is mainly used to control mosquitoes. The compounds were examined for their ability to suppress NK function following exposures of 1 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 6 days. Each agent was able to substantially decrease NK lytic function within 24 h. At a concentration of 5 µM, both TC and NP inhibited NK lytic function by 87 and 30%, respectively; DDT decreased function by 55% at 2.5 µM. The negative effects of each of these compounds persisted and/or intensified following a brief (1 h) exposure to the compounds, indicating that the impairment of function cannot be eliminated by removal of the compound under in vitro conditions.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/8/3939
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Infectious Diseases: From Endocrine Disruption to Immunosuppression
Abstract
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are hormonally active compounds in the environment that interfere with the body’s endocrine system and consequently produce adverse health effects. Despite persistent public health concerns, EDCs remain important components of common consumer products, thus representing ubiquitous contaminants to humans. While scientific evidence confirmed their contribution to the severity of Influenza A virus (H1N1) in the animal model, their roles in susceptibility and clinical outcome of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cannot be underestimated. Since its emergence in late 2019, clinical reports on COVID-19 have confirmed that severe disease and death occur in persons aged ≥65 years and those with underlying comorbidities. Major comorbidities of COVID-19 include diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, and kidney and liver diseases. Meanwhile, long-term exposure to EDCs contributes significantly to the onset and progression of these comorbid diseases. Besides, EDCs play vital roles in the disruption of the body’s immune system. Here, we review the recent literature on the roles of EDCs in comorbidities contributing to COVID-19 mortality, impacts of EDCs on the immune system, and recent articles linking EDCs to COVID-19 risks. We also recommend methodologies that could be adopted to comprehensively study the role of EDCs in COVID-19 risk.
I’m certainly no expert, but a quick look at AMF says the bednets are treated with Pyrethroid, which is” usually broken apart by sunlight and the atmosphere in one or two days” (Wikipedia) This is let’s me be skeptical of whether incorporating the environmental and health effects really make a big difference. Furthermore, though again this is just my intuition, agricultural farming involves much worse doses of insecticides that contaminate streams and so far we have not observed any large-scale effects of environmental collapse or infertility that would justify questioning the cost-effectiveness of AMF. (I’m not questioning that our use of insecticides very likely leads to the decline of insects and diminishes fertility though, I just think that AMF is a tiny factor in this.)
Please do not cherrypick your facts regarding pyrethroids. The full information provided by your source is as follows:
“Pyrethroids are toxic to insects such as bees, dragonflies, mayflies, gadflies, and some other invertebrates, including those that constitute the base of aquatic and terrestrial food webs.They are toxic to aquatic organisms including fish.
Biodegradation
Pyrethroids are usually broken apart by sunlight and the atmosphere in one or two days, however when associated with sediment they can persist for some time.
Pyrethroids are unaffected by conventional secondary treatment systems at municipal wastewater treatment facilities. They appear in the effluent, usually at levels lethal to invertebrates.”
See also:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01280-0
“Abstract
Malaria is a serious global health issue, with around 200 million cases per year. As such, great effort has been put into the mass distribution of bed nets as a means of prophylaxis within Africa. Distributed mosquito nets are intended to be used for malaria protection, yet increasing evidence suggests that fishing is a primary use for these nets, providing fresh concerns for already stressed coastal ecosystems. While research documents the scale of mosquito net fisheries globally, no quantitative analysis of their landings exists. The effects of these fisheries on the wider ecosystem assemblages have not previously been examined. In this study, we present the first detailed analysis of the sustainability of these fisheries by examining the diversity, age class, trophic structure and magnitude of biomass removal. Dragnet landings, one of two gear types in which mosquito nets can be utilised, were recorded across ten sites in northern Mozambique where the use of Mosquito nets for fishing is common. Our results indicate a substantial removal of juveniles from coastal seagrass meadows, many of which are commercially important in the region or play important ecological roles. We conclude that the use of mosquito nets for fishing may contribute to food insecurity, greater poverty and the loss of ecosystem functioning.”
Sorry for cherry-picking there. Seems like the insecticides really do have unintended consequences.
I am still skeptical of the effect though since Holden Karofsky says here that fishing with the nets seems pretty rare.
I think my point still stands though. While there will be some environmental damage from the nets, it’s very unlikely to outweigh the human lives saved.
I think the strongest point here is that it’s not at all clear whether the organisms in the streams that may be killed by the insecticides have net positive lives. See “How good is the life of an insect”
In any way, I encourage you to make a detailed investigation here to prove your point. I think there is a ~5% probability I would update that malaria nets are a lot less good than I thought.
Thanks for tackling the quantification/estimation of carbon footprint costs!
The problem of moral cluelessness in the context of longtermism is definitely always on my mind in any EA discussion topic. It would certainly seem more research is needed to quantify the long-term harms.