4 ms·

Look at this problem from different angle. These two species are only abundant in areas where humans live. The malaria annual death toll is about 440000 lives.

Look at this problem from different angle. These two species are only abundant in areas where humans live. The malaria annual death toll is about 440000 lives. Maybe it is more worth of an effort to move humans out of there? Since no one is going to eradicate cars worldwide just because the annual human death toll in car accidents is 1.25 million!

x1798DE 11y ago
But the ongoing cost of eliminating cars would be enormous. The ancestor post is saying that there would be only fixed costs involved in eliminating malaria-transmitting species of mosquito.
- ommunist 11y ago
  What really ailes me is that all research is concentrated on killing poor mosquitoes, not the Plasmodium, which is the real cause of the disease. Should we also kill all the cats because they carry Toxoplasmae?
  - tropo 11y ago
    Given the that Toxoplasmae causes detrimental brain effects in humans, yes. Absolutely 100% unquestionably yes, without a doubt. We could keep a few cats isolated behind glass in zoos. Isolated cats don't matter.
    - ommunist 11y ago
      You understand! Lets apply for IMO grant for that.
  - Qwertious 11y ago
    If it's a matter of animal rights, cats have a hell of a lot more higher-order brain-functioning than mosquitoes do, because the latter have effectively zero.
saulrh 11y ago
Amusingly, anthropophilia versus zoophilia is genetic. If we all cleared out of Africa completely, those problematic mosquito strains may well go extinct. Now I'm wondering how fast they'd re-evolve. So it's probably more like the case I thought of at the end of my first post, where we'd have to stamp the property back out every time it evolved. It'd be pretty easy, though, and without a major animal reservoir it'd probably give us enough breathing room to eradicate the disease itself with ebola-style quarantines.
- theptip 11y ago
  That's interesting; could another approach then be to use CRISPR to switch the anthropophilic species to zoophilic, and thus sidestep the "ecological destruction" argument that is the main objection to just destroying those species? I think a cost-benefit analysis supports gene-drive-based mosquito eradication, but this option might be as effective and more politically palatable.
  - saulrh 11y ago
    You'd be forcing them into another ecological niche, where without additional changes to adapt them to their new diet they'd likely be outcompeted and die. It'd be a complicated and inefficient route to eradicating them just as surely as if you'd killed them all.
maxerickson 11y ago
Should we also help malaria reestablish in the areas we previously eradicated it? You know, Europe, the US.
- ommunist 11y ago
  This is technically possible. I wonder what political aim of such a campaign might be?
kchoudhu 11y ago
Let me know when you find a place that will accept and support 180MM Bangladeshis and 1B Africans. Kill the mosquitos. It's cheaper in the long run.
- ommunist 11y ago
  Mongolia.
- _AllisonMobley 11y ago
  >It's cheaper in the long run. Is it? A human that survives to reproduce that would have otherwise died from malaria uses more non-renewable resources than a human that dies from malaria over the course of their lifetime, and continues to do so after their death by way of their progeny. In terms of how much time we have as a species before running out of non-renewables on earth, killing the mosquitos might cost more than our blue marble can afford. Perhaps certain natural population controls ought not be tampered with.
  - whiskers08xmt 11y ago
    The benefits of human population control through disease, isn't much of a benefit at all, as child mortality and fertility tends to be correlated. The less chance of your kids dying, the less kids you'll have, in general. This probably means that while we might see a population boom in an adjustment period, we'd probably soon see drops in fertility.

x1798DE 11y ago

But the ongoing cost of eliminating cars would be enormous. The ancestor post is saying that there would be only fixed costs involved in eliminating malaria-transmitting species of mosquito.

ommunist 11y ago
What really ailes me is that all research is concentrated on killing poor mosquitoes, not the Plasmodium, which is the real cause of the disease. Should we also kill all the cats because they carry Toxoplasmae?
- tropo 11y ago
  Given the that Toxoplasmae causes detrimental brain effects in humans, yes. Absolutely 100% unquestionably yes, without a doubt. We could keep a few cats isolated behind glass in zoos. Isolated cats don't matter.
  - ommunist 11y ago
    You understand! Lets apply for IMO grant for that.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  If it's a matter of animal rights, cats have a hell of a lot more higher-order brain-functioning than mosquitoes do, because the latter have effectively zero.

saulrh 11y ago

Amusingly, anthropophilia versus zoophilia is genetic. If we all cleared out of Africa completely, those problematic mosquito strains may well go extinct. Now I'm wondering how fast they'd re-evolve. So it's probably more like the case I thought of at the end of my first post, where we'd have to stamp the property back out every time it evolved. It'd be pretty easy, though, and without a major animal reservoir it'd probably give us enough breathing room to eradicate the disease itself with ebola-style quarantines.

theptip 11y ago
That's interesting; could another approach then be to use CRISPR to switch the anthropophilic species to zoophilic, and thus sidestep the "ecological destruction" argument that is the main objection to just destroying those species? I think a cost-benefit analysis supports gene-drive-based mosquito eradication, but this option might be as effective and more politically palatable.
- saulrh 11y ago
  You'd be forcing them into another ecological niche, where without additional changes to adapt them to their new diet they'd likely be outcompeted and die. It'd be a complicated and inefficient route to eradicating them just as surely as if you'd killed them all.

maxerickson 11y ago

Should we also help malaria reestablish in the areas we previously eradicated it? You know, Europe, the US.

ommunist 11y ago
This is technically possible. I wonder what political aim of such a campaign might be?

kchoudhu 11y ago

Let me know when you find a place that will accept and support 180MM Bangladeshis and 1B Africans. Kill the mosquitos. It's cheaper in the long run.

ommunist 11y ago
Mongolia.
_AllisonMobley 11y ago
>It's cheaper in the long run. Is it? A human that survives to reproduce that would have otherwise died from malaria uses more non-renewable resources than a human that dies from malaria over the course of their lifetime, and continues to do so after their death by way of their progeny. In terms of how much time we have as a species before running out of non-renewables on earth, killing the mosquitos might cost more than our blue marble can afford. Perhaps certain natural population controls ought not be tampered with.
- whiskers08xmt 11y ago
  The benefits of human population control through disease, isn't much of a benefit at all, as child mortality and fertility tends to be correlated. The less chance of your kids dying, the less kids you'll have, in general. This probably means that while we might see a population boom in an adjustment period, we'd probably soon see drops in fertility.