Three intertwined doctrines are all the rage among corporate, environmental, government and religious activists.

• Corporate social responsibility says companies should conduct their affairs in accord with sustainability and precautionary precepts.
• Sustainable development permits activities only if they "meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."
• The precautionary principle stops activities if they raise "threats of harm to human health or the environment," even if there is no clear cause-and-effect relationship.

Radical First World activists created these dogmas to promote their agendas. They define what is "responsible" and contend that development must give way to environmental concerns, even if this harms the clear needs of present generations, any time activists visualise a hypothetical threat.

For people in the Third World, these doctrines are dangerous, and even deadly. They impose the loftiest of developed world standards on developing nations, while ignoring the needs and aspirations of people who struggle daily just to survive. They are rooted too much in conjectural problems and the theoretical needs of future generations of rich Americans and Europeans - and too little in real, immediate, life-and-death needs of present generations in developing countries.

Their primary focus is on restricting development, not sustaining it. And they dole out extravagant credit for health and environmental risks that the doctrines theoretically might reduce, but impose no "discredit" for the many risks, injuries and deaths they cause.

If this sounds imperious and callous on a philosophical level, it is far worse in real terms.

Few Africans have access to electricity. Millions of women and children spend their days collecting firewood, or squatting in mud laced with animal faeces and urine to collect, dry and store manure for use as fuel. Few attend school. A million or more die every year from lung diseases due to indoor air pollution, and dysentery due to filthy drinking water.

They want to live in modern homes, determine their own destinies, and enjoy electricity, safe water and other basics that the US and EU take for granted. They also want to protect their environment. If people don't have electricity, says Gordon Mwesigye, a senior Kampala official, they will cut down trees, and Africa will lose its wildlife habitats and the health and economic benefits that abundant, reliable, affordable electricity provides.

Uganda's Bujagali dam could provide both electricity and safe drinking water. But radical First World activists oppose the project and are pressuring aid agencies to withdraw funding. Africa shouldn't make the same "mistakes" we did, they insist. It should opt for wind turbines, or solar panels on huts. It mustn't dam up good kayaking rivers or use fossil fuels.

Malaria kills another 2 million Africans every year, keeps millions home from work and school, and drains billions from the continent's economies and health care systems.

No other chemical can match DDT as an affordable, effective way to repel mosquitoes from homes, exterminate any that land on walls, and largely eliminate their urge to bite in traditional homes treated annually with tiny amounts of this miracle pesticide. It's not suitable in all cases, but it is a vital weapon in the war against a killer disease. Where it is used, it helps reduce malaria cases and deaths by 80 percent or more.

But today a near-global ban on the production, export and use of DDT is enforced by activist pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of economic sanctions by foundations, nations and international aid agencies. Activists want to impose expensive drugs, ineffective larvae-eating fish, and semi-effective pesticide-treated bed nets as one-size-fits-all solutions.

Another 14 million Africans face imminent starvation. Modern science could reduce their anguish - through seeds and crops that have been genetically modified, to make them resistant to drought, salt and insect pests, reduce the need for pesticides, and save wildlife habitat by enabling farmers to grow more food on less land. The U.S. has shipped African countries thousands of tons of GM corn - the same corn that Americans like me have been eating safely for years.

But Europeans and environmental radicals are screaming "genetic pollution" and threatening to withdraw aid and ban agricultural exports from any countries that plant or distribute the grains - or use DDT to protect their citizens' health.

Africans might be forgiven if they think the radicals' cars have bumper stickers that read: Africans have no rights. Solar for huts - and huts forever. Sustainable insects, expendable people. Better dead than fed. Control Third World population growth.

The simple reality is that "corporate social responsibility" is irresponsible - and often lethal.

In Johannesburg, Africa's poor spoke out for the first time. Many Americans and Europeans took notice. If Africa continues to raise its voice, to demand that these deadly policies be changed, its children may yet enjoy a promising future.