14 ms·
We've done this lots[1] of[2] times[3] when it threatens agriculture, but when it threatens the lives of poor people in third world countries, suddenly we're wo
by alwaysdoit 10y ago
We've done this lots[1] of[2] times[3] when it threatens agriculture, but when it threatens the lives of poor people in third world countries, suddenly we're worried about the ecosystem?
There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem, but our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratitis_capitata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratitis_capitata
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrepha_ludens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrepha_ludens
- bduerst 10y agoIt's not really an apples to apples comparison. All of those are invasive species, except for the screw fly, which isn't a large part of a biological ecosystem (e.g. a sizeable portion of the Myotis lucifugus diet).
- nradov 10y agoIn principle why should it matter whether a particular species is native or invasive? Regardless of whether a particular species spread to an area naturally or were introduced by humans we have to deal with them as they exist today. And certainly some mosquito species are invasive to the areas where they live now.
- wodenokoto 10y agoThe difference is that invasive species are considered harmful to the ecosystem while naturally spread species are considered part of the ecosystem.
- ajuc 10y agoNative species are just an invasive species 10 000 years later.
- praxulus 10y agoOk, so in the year 11950 we can have a debate about whether or not a species has been around long enough to be considered native. Right now, they're still invasive.
- nradov 10y agoWho gets to decide what is "harmful" and what isn't? Why is it necessarily better to have one animal species in a certain area rather than another? Valuing native species over invasive species seems like an arbitrary human value judgment. (I don't necessarily disagree with eradicating invasive species, but I've noticed that people often haven't thought it through or considered their biases.)
- bduerst 10y ago>Who gets to decide what is "harmful" and what isn't? Typically zoologists, botanists, and other biologists who study local ecosystems and determine the damage done by invasive species. Construing this as a human concept doesn't make it arbitrary - anthropogenic impact on the environment is important because we rely on our environment for survival as a species. Damage isn't limited to just a less biological diversity, it can and has stretched into agriculture and human production.
- __jal 10y agoWhy, you get to decide. And I do. And everyone else. Just like we all chose whom to listen to. Turns out that people who study these things and understand the implications tend to be more listened to than, say, me, because I'm not an expert. But to explain a bit of the reasoning, as I understand it, invasive species are considered harmful to ecosystems because they tend to throw them out of equilibrium. If you introduce something to an environment with no natural predators or other environment feedback loops to constrain population growth, the newly introduced species has a field day, for a bit, until it kills off whatever it feeds on. Since ecosystems are inherently deeply interconnected things, the boom-bust cycle causes all sorts of problems. Now maybe a new equilibrium is eventually "better" than it was before, but that, I think, is the real arbitrary human value judgment. Observing that introducing a new species throws existing systems out of whack isn't a value judgement - it accurately describes what happens.
- nradov 10y agoBut real world ecosystems are never in equilibrium, at least not for long. Even isolated ecosystems with little human contact and no invasive species experience boom and bust cycles. So we're actually just discussing the appropriate rate of change. How fast is too fast?
- btilly 10y agoIt matters because unless you understand the ecosystem very well, you don't know what else the presence of a native species affects. For example look at the phenomena of keystone species. If you remove starfish from a beach, the mussels will take over and the rest of the tidepool animals get wiped out. The reason is that the starfish prefer eating mussels and so maintain a balance. Unless you really know the ecosystem, it is hard to tell what is a keystone species that completely changes things. An introduced species is easier. Unless it is in the same ecological niche as a native, there is no possibility that it is a necessary part of the balance. Unfortunately, mosquitoes are likely to have a significant ecological role. They have preferred targets. Their role as a disease vector affects what population density those targets can have. Wipe out the mosquitoes, and you don't know what will happen to that ecosystem. That said, I've been bitten by enough mosquitoes that I'm willing to risk it...
- maxerickson 10y agoThey have preferred targets. The methods discussed in the article can be targeted on a per species basis. The action could be limited to mosquito species that prefer to target humans. (the sterile male method is already being used)
- lmm 10y agoRemoving a native species carries a much greater risk of causing ecosystem collapse (massively reducing biodiversity) than removing an invasive species. Biodiversity is practically valuable (e.g. drug candidates) and some people feel it's inherently valuable. (Also some people feel that preserving the natural ecosystem is inherently valuable, though I don't have that feeling myself).
- XFrequentist 10y agoAedes mosquitoes are indeed "invasive" in much (arguably, most) of the world.
- bduerst 10y agoYes and eliminating two specific Aedes species from where they are invasive is by far the best plan of action. Claiming that mass extinction of all mosquitoes from the ecosystem is a bullet the environment can take is another matter.
- XFrequentist 10y agoAgree completely with your first point. To your second point: eliminating all blood-feeding mosquitoes is the most radical proposal I've ever encountered, and this is a small subset of all mosquitoes (itself a small subset of Culicidae). I've never seen it compellingly demonstrated that these mosquitoes have an irreplacable role in any ecosystem, but there's much we don't grasp that an incremental and cautious approach seems wise.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoHumans are invasive in, arguably, all of the world.
- XFrequentist 10y agoJust about, yeah.
- speleding 10y agoThere are places where mosquitos are an invasive species. Hawaii apparently did not have mosquitos until they were introduced there by humans. So that might be a good place to experiment with eradicating them, the "it's not natural" argument would carry less weight there.
- bduerst 10y agoPrecisely. To be clear, eradication of invasive mosquito species where they aren't native is a great idea. Thinking that removing mosquitoes from the ecosystems everywhere won't have a negative impact on the environment is less so.
- funkyy 10y agoThere will be obviously an impact. Question is how big.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoI don't really understand why we're arguing about this. How many species have we lost as a result of human activity? What's one more. Here's a list[1]. Fuck the mosquito. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine
- azazqadir 10y agoThe point is we are deliberately trying to eliminate their existence and we will be directly responsible for that.
- u_me_him 10y agoI can live with that
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
- maaku 10y agoThose eradications were paid for by the Department of Agriculture (and equivalent organizations in other regions). Who is going to pay for the mosquito? I'm not objecting. I think we should eradicate the mosquito. But as someone who has worked for the government (albeit a different branch) I know that bureaucrats are not being evil or heartless when they don't allocate funds for necessary work that falls outside of their mandate: they could go to jail for misallocation of taxpayer funds. So whose mandate is this?
- Avshalom 10y agoAs an Alaskan AND a Floridian: If they wanna auction/raffle off the privilege of throwing the switch I would attempt to give them all my money.
- kls 10y agoI am pretty much ground zero of where they want to release them down here in the FL Keys and I am all for it. The amount of chemicals they pump out in the summer months is enough to sway me towards the belief that it can not be much if any riskier. When we hear the hum of the mosquito truck we have to yell, to our kids playing outside, to get in the house and stay out of the mist. Most of the other locals are vehemently opposed to their release. I say they cannot release them fast enough.
- dmd 10y agoWhen my mom was little, "it was very exciting when we heard the DDT truck coming and all the kids would run out of their houses or off the beach and run behind the fogging truck...the smell was kind of sweet and running in the DDT fog was fun."
- Joof 10y agoThe solution? Make it smell like ass.
- hoorayimhelping 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- option_greek 10y agoAs someone who suffered the wrath of both malaria and dengue, I can't agree enough.
- eggy 10y agoI'm in East Java with my wife and 1 year old daughter. The rainy season was supposed to end a few weeks ago, but we still have rain, and mosquitos. I wish they would eliminate the two Zika vectors, and the Malaria vector mosquito as well. I am vegetarian for over two years nos, and feel compassion for all living things, except the mosquito. The article made me laugh as well.
- James001 10y agoThe main problem is how do we actually eradicate mosquito's without introducing other severely risks? For example, one of the popular techniques is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes that are sterile. The problem is we don't know what could happen if/when these modified genes spread into the wider environment It's a very serious concern, whether or not eradicating mosquitoes will introduce more severe problems
- DanBC 10y agoHow do sterile mosquitos spread their genes? (Genuine question! I don't know what the risk is)
- James001 10y agoViruses are the most common way for genes to be transferred. A virus literally goes into the cell of the mosquito and copy's a small portion of its genes and splices it into its own genome, which it can then copy and splice into other organisms.
- Nadya 10y agoAmbiguity strikes again! (I was as puzzled as you are, but I think I figured it out) The problem is we don't know what happens after/when we introduce those genes into the environment. Humans are spreading the gene by releasing the modified mosquitoes - not them having offspring.
- abrookewood 10y agoWhen using sterile mosquitoes, the idea isn't that they pass on their genes, but that they dominate mating and therefore disrupt the breeding cycle. I.e. you release LOTS of sterile males and the normal females spend time mating with them instead of normal males and the population therefore decreases (until you run out of sterile males). I think the better option (also in the article) is to release engineered males that result on male only offspring. Eventually you run out of females and the species dies off.
- 10y ago
- girishso 10y agoYou should definitely checkout - GEM mosquito control - if protecting environment is your real concern. http://www.appropedia.org/GEM_mosquito_control http://www.appropedia.org/GEM_mosquito_control
- fiblye 10y agoYou're comparing individual species with an entire family. Countless animals rely on mosquitoes as a valuable food source. And before someone brings up the tired "mosquito predators all eat things besides mosquitoes" argument, people eat food besides grains. It doesn't mean we wouldn't still be 100% fucked if rice and wheat went extinct overnight.
- bsbechtel 10y agoI've heard that's not true. I've never investigated it to verify, and personally thought it was a little hard to believe, but nonetheless your assumption may not be correct.
- nightfly 10y agoI've heard that's not true. I've never investigated it to verify, and personally thought it was a little hard to believe, but nonetheless your assumption may not be correct.
- dllthomas 10y agoI've heard that's not true. I've never investigated it to verify, and personally thought it was a little hard to believe, but nonetheless your assumption may not be correct.
- _AllisonMobley 10y agoWhat's going on here. Is this an HN meme?
- dllthomas 10y agoMy understanding of the situation: the grandparent's comment provided little value, and could be reasonably applied to virtually any comment without adding much opportunity for the reader to educate themselves or to respond. nightfly apparently noticed that "any comment", of course, includes the comment itself. I found that amusing, and carried on in kind.
- cb18 10y agothreatens the lives of poor people in third world countries, suddenly we're worried about the ecosystem? I don't know how this will be received. I don't even know how I feel about it. But someone has to ask the tough questions. Is it evolutionarily prudent to go about saving people who can't save themselves? our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one. I don't think that is our "current solution," the lives of many of the world's "poor" have gotten immeasurably better, health and material wise, since contact with Europeans. Prior to outside contact sub-Saharan Africans didn't have the wheel, written language, a calendar, buildings greater than 1-story, any mechanical devices, domesticated animals, ... Efforts against malaria, and for clean water are ongoing. Iodised salt does wonders. The list goes on... I don't know how you got in your mind your "current solution."
- vegardx 10y agoHold on, evolution stopped being the driving force for human development a long time ago. The question you should be asking is how we can accept that so many people are unable to save themselves because of actions we (developed world) have taken. Both recently and in the past.
- cb18 10y agoevolution stopped being the driving force for human development a long time ago. Why in the world would you think that? We're still made of genes aren't we? We still sexually reproduce don't we? because of actions we (developed world) have taken Stark differences existed between the continents long before colonisation. Stark differences exist in areas that were never colonised. Some areas that were colonised are now thriving. As much as we like to flatter ourselves, we are not the cause of all the world's problems. Nor is the constant haranguing of people who have nothing to do with events decades and centuries past of benefit to anybody.
- mirimir 10y agoTrue. But it's social and cultural evolution that matter now.
- coldtea 10y ago>There will be an environmental impact, but [...] not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem Citation needed.
- masklinn 10y ago> There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem, but our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one. Ecosystem-wise, let's not forget mosquitoes and their diseases are as much threat as they are content. Hawaii didn't have mosquitoes until the 19th century, they did a number on native bird populations. Mosquitoes negatively affect any species they feed on, not just humans.
- wainstead 10y agoAnd the Aedes aegypti mosquito is an invasive species here in the Florida Keys. Eradicating an invasive species sounds like a good idea to me.