An article in a Dec. 8 edition of The New York Times discussed problems caused by invasive goldfish in the Great Lakes.
It reminded me of something I had read as a kid. I grew up in an apartment in Manhattan but loved animals. My parents, quite reasonably, did not allow mammals or birds that could wander around the apartment, but I had a couple of dozen tanks of tropical fish, turtles, snakes, lizards, and amphibians. I subscribed to The Aquarium magazine, a beautifully produced monthly, printed on heavy stock, with articles by experienced hobbyists, ichthyologists, and explorers who sought exotic fish species and, in those long-gone days, faced few restrictions on collecting and importing them. An article from the late ’50s or early ’60s talked about the problems caused by pet goldfish released into streams and lakes in Florida. Goldfish—a type of carp—tolerate wider temperature ranges and lower oxygen levels than native fish, eat anything, reproduce like crazy, and can grow quite large. That’s what happened in Florida then and what’s happening in the Great Lakes now.
How can it be that this problem persists more than 60 years later and merits a story in The Times? How could it be that a kid in Manhattan knew about it, but people who could do something either didn’t know or didn’t care enough to act?
That got me looking for other examples of such slow-motion disasters, where knowledge was available-—to politicians, scientists, regulators, business leaders, and regular people—but little or no action was taken.
In 1948, 75 years ago, Alexander Fleming and two colleagues shared the Nobel prize for the development of penicillin, which saved thousands of lives in World War II and millions since. The subsequent development of a range of antibiotics is one of the great public health triumphs of the 20th century. However, antibiotic resistance has been spreading for decades, leading to antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, MRSA, and lowered effectiveness of antibiotics more broadly. There are many reasons for this, but ignorance is not one of them. Indeed, in his acceptance speech, Fleming said: “I would like to sound one note of warning. … It is not difficult to make microbes resistant to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not sufficient to kill them, and the same thing has occasionally happened in the body.” Certainly the relevant scientific and pharmaceutical communities were aware of Fleming’s warning; they did not have to subscribe to an obscure hobbyist magazine to learn about the problem.
Another article in The Times, Dec. 21, speaks to overuse of antibiotics. It summarized problems with antibiotic overuse, then went on to advise that, if given a prescription for an antibiotic, you ask your doctor what it’s being prescribed for and “if there’s a test to ensure that the medication is indicated and whether you can wait a few days to fill the prescription if you’re not improving.” And, “Whatever you do, don’t ask for an antibiotic,” since doctors are more likely to prescribe inappropriately if asked for antibiotics. Now, while many Times readers may not be aware of the problems of antibiotic overuse, it is chilling to think that prescribers may still be ignorant. How can this be?
My final example uses an odd source: MAD magazine. Written by a self-described “gang of idiots” and aimed at adolescents, it primarily published parodies of popular TV shows, movies, and ads, and made no pretense to deep scientific knowledge or sophisticated analysis. As far back as 1968, MAD ran occasional stories about environmental degradation.
That article begins with MAD’s typical zany incisiveness: “If you’ve been doing any breathing lately, you’re aware of the fact that Air Pollution has become a serious problem in America.” It lists utilities, municipal dumps, and cars and trucks as the primary sources, and goes on: “Well, MAD says this whole mess is going to get worse before it gets better!” Of course they were right. If MAD writers knew, and the editors thought that teenagers would find the idea accessible and amusing, how could knowledgeable, serious adults spend decades failing to act? Some people may view [the United Nations Climate Conference] COP28 as a welcome exception, and it may even help to address climate change, but it comes decades late.
Institutions and societies often fail to act in the face of known problems when the problems are not urgent. Such problems—like deferred maintenance of Harvard’s infrastructure, or, for that matter, of much of America’s—only get worse with time, and when they become too serious to ignore, remedies are very expensive and implemented poorly or, as with the goldfish, impossible. The solution is easy to state: People must stop being so self-centered, think in the long term, and take constructive collective action even when they derive no immediate benefit. Admittedly, implementation poses some challenges. Remember, more than 30 years ago Rodney King asked, “Why can’t we all get along?” Nobody has figured that out yet.
Billy Salter has lived on Elm Street on the Common with his wife, Kathy Hewett, for more than 30 years.
