5 ms·

There will be side effects, but could it really be worse than the alternative? That is, one million deaths per year.

joekrill 11y ago
They very well could be. That's just it -- we don't know. And when we kill them all off, are we going to be able to reverse it when we find out that the result is causing two million deaths per year?
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Which is why people are studying the issue, writing papers and popular articles, instead of just doing it.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Despite the link-bait headline, no one is talking about killing off all mosquitos. And yes, gene drives can be reversed.
- cik2e 11y ago
  Under what hypothetical scenario would killing off mosquitos cause two million (human?) deaths per year?
  - imakesnowflakes 11y ago
    What if the diseases that depend on mosquitoes to spread mutate/evolve themselves to spread via air... You know, "life finds a way" and all that..
  - ommunist 11y ago
    Easy. Untold side effect of MTBe caused infertility in 50% of cases in second generation of black women in treated regions. Entire country was depopulated in 25 years. Like that research article from 2056?
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  The worst man-made ecological disasters in history caused tens of thousands of deaths. We can say with certainty that killing off a few species of mosquitoes will not be worse.
  - joekrill 11y ago
    You're suggesting that because it's never happened before (that we know of), we can say with _certainty_ it won't happen in the future? Can we go back 100 years and say that about climate change please?
    - bryanlarsen 11y ago
      1 million is a really big number, which is what makes the certainty easy. That's even bigger than projected deaths from climate change.
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    You certaintyometer needs to be tuned. Around 129.000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at least 200.000 people killed in Chernobyl until data. And this is a child's play compared with the >85 millions of humans killed by a worst ecological disaster. We can say with certainty that nobody thought in ancient times that those small and clean rodents, living peacefully in the grasslands and steppes of Central Asia were something to worry. Rats in Europe were not unlike the good species of mosquito if we think about it, with their own diseases and new random relationships...
sliverstorm 11y ago
They aren't a random niche animal. Mosquitoes are pollinators and a major food source for many, many other animals. We know that "pollinator" and "major food source" can be critical roles in an ecosystem.
- ommunist 11y ago
  +1. But they are not the only ones. However, I 'd rather observe tropical ecosystems for 10 more years before making such a radical effort. Like I said earlier, no one is eradicating cars just because more than a million humans die in car accidents every year.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
Of course. Do you eat pesticides for breakfast? How do you supposedly kill mosquitoes without chemical dangerous products? Products that will kill people with cancer, asthma or birth defects. How do you kill mosquitoes without killing bees and other useful insects that pollinize most of the agrarian production? Most people ignore that on their own(using just wind to pollinize) the food that we cultivate the food production would be 5 percent or 10% of the current production. 50% of the world population will starve. Bees already died en masse after the introduction of new pesticides, that had to be delayed in lots of places to study how they were accepting bees. The healthier bees today live on cities like Paris which had forgotten pesticides in parks. The irony. Ignorant people are very dangerous. Most people, specially experts on a specific field, are ignorant in most of the other areas. Near my house there is a river 30 years ago some smart ass though it was a good idea to introduce an alien species of fish into it. No problem, the new fish was small and won't eat the local fish, they said. Genius! The new fish eat all the eggs of local native population, that basically become extinct as a result.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  Read the article before commenting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique
- ommunist 11y ago
  I'll tell you how. Species-specific virus, like the one we developed in 1974 for controlling populations of gypsy moth.
_AllisonMobley 11y ago
At a certain point you're saving people so they can starve to death. That's the worst case. Best case: saving them speeds up how soon we run out of non-renewable resources. What's more merciful to mankind as a whole in the long run? I'd say it's keeping the planet in good shape, and I don't see how eradicating malaria can do anything but hurt that goal.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  When mortality rates fall, birth rates typically fall more.

They very well could be. That's just it -- we don't know. And when we kill them all off, are we going to be able to reverse it when we find out that the result is causing two million deaths per year?

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Which is why people are studying the issue, writing papers and popular articles, instead of just doing it.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
Despite the link-bait headline, no one is talking about killing off all mosquitos. And yes, gene drives can be reversed.
cik2e 11y ago
Under what hypothetical scenario would killing off mosquitos cause two million (human?) deaths per year?
- imakesnowflakes 11y ago
  What if the diseases that depend on mosquitoes to spread mutate/evolve themselves to spread via air... You know, "life finds a way" and all that..
- ommunist 11y ago
  Easy. Untold side effect of MTBe caused infertility in 50% of cases in second generation of black women in treated regions. Entire country was depopulated in 25 years. Like that research article from 2056?
bryanlarsen 11y ago
The worst man-made ecological disasters in history caused tens of thousands of deaths. We can say with certainty that killing off a few species of mosquitoes will not be worse.
- joekrill 11y ago
  You're suggesting that because it's never happened before (that we know of), we can say with _certainty_ it won't happen in the future? Can we go back 100 years and say that about climate change please?
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    1 million is a really big number, which is what makes the certainty easy. That's even bigger than projected deaths from climate change.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  You certaintyometer needs to be tuned. Around 129.000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and at least 200.000 people killed in Chernobyl until data. And this is a child's play compared with the >85 millions of humans killed by a worst ecological disaster. We can say with certainty that nobody thought in ancient times that those small and clean rodents, living peacefully in the grasslands and steppes of Central Asia were something to worry. Rats in Europe were not unlike the good species of mosquito if we think about it, with their own diseases and new random relationships...

sliverstorm 11y ago

They aren't a random niche animal. Mosquitoes are pollinators and a major food source for many, many other animals. We know that "pollinator" and "major food source" can be critical roles in an ecosystem.

ommunist 11y ago
+1. But they are not the only ones. However, I 'd rather observe tropical ecosystems for 10 more years before making such a radical effort. Like I said earlier, no one is eradicating cars just because more than a million humans die in car accidents every year.

Htsthbjig 11y ago

Of course. Do you eat pesticides for breakfast? How do you supposedly kill mosquitoes without chemical dangerous products? Products that will kill people with cancer, asthma or birth defects. How do you kill mosquitoes without killing bees and other useful insects that pollinize most of the agrarian production? Most people ignore that on their own(using just wind to pollinize) the food that we cultivate the food production would be 5 percent or 10% of the current production. 50% of the world population will starve. Bees already died en masse after the introduction of new pesticides, that had to be delayed in lots of places to study how they were accepting bees. The healthier bees today live on cities like Paris which had forgotten pesticides in parks. The irony. Ignorant people are very dangerous. Most people, specially experts on a specific field, are ignorant in most of the other areas. Near my house there is a river 30 years ago some smart ass though it was a good idea to introduce an alien species of fish into it. No problem, the new fish was small and won't eat the local fish, they said. Genius! The new fish eat all the eggs of local native population, that basically become extinct as a result.

jdmichal 11y ago
Read the article before commenting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique
ommunist 11y ago
I'll tell you how. Species-specific virus, like the one we developed in 1974 for controlling populations of gypsy moth.

_AllisonMobley 11y ago

At a certain point you're saving people so they can starve to death. That's the worst case. Best case: saving them speeds up how soon we run out of non-renewable resources. What's more merciful to mankind as a whole in the long run? I'd say it's keeping the planet in good shape, and I don't see how eradicating malaria can do anything but hurt that goal.

dllthomas 11y ago
When mortality rates fall, birth rates typically fall more.