I hate all the glib wordplay that reframes a policy decision and turns it on its head to make it seem like a different kind of policy decision. Nobody is “choosing” to have mosquitos. Mosquitos exist naturally. Maybe we can undertake a large scale intervention in the environment and wipe them out, but it that’s different than “choosing” to have them. Just say what you mean.
It's a choice to wipe them out or let them continue to exist. We were on our way to doing that using DDT until the unfortunate side-effects of that chemical were understood.
The pesticide levels built up in the insect predators of mosquitos (and other bugs) which tended to kill the predators and let the mosquito population explode.
If we are "choosing" to live with mosquitoes, then we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
We could in one stroke take half of what multi-billionaires and quasi-trillionaires have hoarded. If they didn't have personal accountants, they wouldn't even notice it, as they have far more money than what they manage to burn through - and we would have the means to "choose" to solve real problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.
> we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
It's debatable whether taking half of billionaires' wealth would materially advance the efforts in those areas.
What seems far less debatable is the political consequences of the accummulation of so much wealth — coupled with essentially zero legal restrictions on the use of that wealth in the quest for (governmental) power.
Can you give me a back of the napkin calculation without looking it up how much wealth billionaires have in the U.S. and compare that to how much the federal and state governments spend every month?
