4 ms·

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge tha

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal.

danieltillett 11y ago
The collateral damage they are talking about here is avoided human misery and death. This is one sort of collateral damage we can happily live with.
- bluejekyll 11y ago
  I think they mean something more along the lines of Dragonflies. They love to eat mosquitoes and their larvae. Not that we shouldn't do it, I'm sure they can live off knats just as easily.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I am pretty sure they were talking about people. From the Nature article "The ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have more people. That's the consequence," says Strickman.
    - rewqfdsa 11y ago
      There's a certain strain of environmentalist that sees deindustrialization, technological regression, and human population decline as the solution to the world's problem. This perspective misses the mark, I think.
      - adrianN 11y ago
        Human population decline would solve a lot of our environmental problems and is not necessarily tied to technological regression. In many developed countries it happens by itself and it could rather easily be helped along with some financial incentives, say, a tax on children.
        rewqfdsa 11y ago
        The last thing we need is a tax on children in societies with sub-replacement fertility. A world without growth is a terrible place. (Before you object: yes, economic growth isn't the same as population growth. But to get economic growth with a declining population, you need productivity to grow faster than the population declines, and we're already having trouble keeping productivity growth up.) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining...
        psykovsky 11y ago
        why does productivity need to go up if the population is declining? what about the unemployed?
        rewqfdsa 11y ago
        Unemployment is on a long-term upward trend because as technology advances, it becomes economical to replace an increasing number of jobs with machines, starting with the lowest-skilled jobs first. Without eugenics, population decline will not increase the smart fraction in society, so to achieve economic growth, you constantly need fewer people to do more work. That is, the more technology we have, the larger the portion of the population that is "zero marginal product" --- that is, the portion of the population that isn't profitable to employ at any wage. Improved education is no help, since most people do not have the intrinsic mental capacity to take full advantage of it. Intelligence is largely genetic and immutable.
        11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

The collateral damage they are talking about here is avoided human misery and death. This is one sort of collateral damage we can happily live with.

bluejekyll 11y ago
I think they mean something more along the lines of Dragonflies. They love to eat mosquitoes and their larvae. Not that we shouldn't do it, I'm sure they can live off knats just as easily.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I am pretty sure they were talking about people. From the Nature article "The ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have more people. That's the consequence," says Strickman.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    There's a certain strain of environmentalist that sees deindustrialization, technological regression, and human population decline as the solution to the world's problem. This perspective misses the mark, I think.
    - adrianN 11y ago
      Human population decline would solve a lot of our environmental problems and is not necessarily tied to technological regression. In many developed countries it happens by itself and it could rather easily be helped along with some financial incentives, say, a tax on children.
      - rewqfdsa 11y ago
        The last thing we need is a tax on children in societies with sub-replacement fertility. A world without growth is a terrible place. (Before you object: yes, economic growth isn't the same as population growth. But to get economic growth with a declining population, you need productivity to grow faster than the population declines, and we're already having trouble keeping productivity growth up.) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining-a-world-without-growth.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/business/economy/imagining...
        psykovsky 11y ago
        why does productivity need to go up if the population is declining? what about the unemployed?
        rewqfdsa 11y ago
        Unemployment is on a long-term upward trend because as technology advances, it becomes economical to replace an increasing number of jobs with machines, starting with the lowest-skilled jobs first. Without eugenics, population decline will not increase the smart fraction in society, so to achieve economic growth, you constantly need fewer people to do more work. That is, the more technology we have, the larger the portion of the population that is "zero marginal product" --- that is, the portion of the population that isn't profitable to employ at any wage. Improved education is no help, since most people do not have the intrinsic mental capacity to take full advantage of it. Intelligence is largely genetic and immutable.
        11y ago