It's odd that this piece leaves out the massive success of using DDT to eradicate malaria in the United States[1]. It was such a success that most people don't even realize malaria was endemic to most of the USA. Obviously improper dumping and so on is bad, but an intelligent society should always consider the tradeoffs of applying any technology. My own ethics highly prioritize reducing human suffering, so I reckon it was most likely worth it in the USA.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...

The article doesn't leave it out. It also discusses the (frankly insane, but well documented) history of the tobacco industry using that narrative as a "morality tale about one poison, to sell another poison".

Yes, DDT was useful in malaria eradication - and would have been more useful for that purpose if it had been restricted from its most important economic use case as an agricultural pesticide.

Remember: it was agricultural use Carson (and others) argued against, and it was due to agricultural use immunity spread so it's no longer useful for vector control.

Use of DDT for malaria control is still permitted under the global ban of the substance, and it is still used in some places.

I'd rather have a vaccine than just dumping chemicals everywhere. I mean, unless it's to kill ticks. Those need to be eradicated.