6 ms·
Nature thinks we could safely wipe mosquitoes off the face of the earth.
- tmsh 16y agoI am no fan of mosquitoes personally, but pollination is the key thing. Esp. now with the shortage of bees. There may not seem like a direct link to humans. Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators. Adults depend on nectar for energy (only females of some species need a meal of blood to get the proteins necessary to lay eggs). Yet McAllister says that their pollination isn't crucial for crops on which humans depend. But mess with one part of the ecosystem and risks that it will affect things globally go way up. I'm surprised Nature isn't more circumspect about this..
- Tichy 16y agoMaybe genetic engineers could come up with another pollinator, sans the blood lust :-)
- jimfl 16y agoFrom my experience, there is no shortage of bees-- only honey bees, which are cultivated as agricultural pollinators and inbred so as to, apparently be less resistant to disease and parasites. In my garden last year, no honey bees, but 3 other species of bees all over the lavender, Rosemary, and other flowers. This year, the honey bees are back, mostly on the borage, which they love.
- martingordon 16y agoYou would think a site called "Nature" would provide a less human-centric point of view: "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind." "A stronger argument for keeping mosquitoes might be found if they provide 'ecosystem services' — the benefits that humans derive from nature." Just because we (might) have the means to eradicate them doesn't necessarily mean we should. Though the article ends with a quote about how the niche could be filled by something better or worse, most of the article claims that the other organisms that would fill the niche would make things better. There is a pretty big possibility that things could become a lot worse (say, instead of spreading malaria, the replacements spread ebola).
- davidw 16y agoI'm general in favor of prudence when dealing with the environment, but after suffering through another summer in mosquito-infested northern Italy, I would be fully in favor of exterminating every last one of the damn things. And that's without thinking about the very real benefits from eliminating malaria.
- sliverstorm 16y ago> You would think a site called "Nature" would provide a less human-centric point of view: "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind." You do realize that's a quote from a medical entomologist, not Nature's journalists, right? And that they are obliged to provide both sides of the argument?
- wake_up_sticky 16y agoYour only valid point is that the replacement organisms might be more dangerous to humans. I find your callousness toward human suffering repulsive. If I could press a button that would instantly wipe out any and all animal species which cause human suffering without any negative consequences, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
- Avenger42 16y agoThe animal species that causes the most human suffering is... humans. (Or were you being facetious? Especially since you shifted the argument from insects to animals.)
- carbocation 16y agoInsects are animals.
- ugh 16y agoI would guess that’s why there is a “without any negative consequences” condition? If I could, with the push of a button, kill any and all species which cause harm to humans without, in the process, causing harm to or even killing humans I would do it, too. Sure. No second thoughts about that.
- toddh 16y agoWhat could possibly go wrong? We've done so well engineering complex ecosystems that there's certainly no possibility of unintended consequences. For a great example of success take a look at rabbits in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia) and perch in Lake Victoria (http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php).
- jerf 16y agoLook at Therac-25, the Ariane 5, and the Mars Surveyor! Therefore we should stop all programming! Argument-by-disaster is a terrible argument, there is not a single human endeavor that has not led to disaster at some point. It proves too much. Reflexively decrying all environmental modification is at best a cognitive shortcut which should be discarded when it doesn't apply, at worst institutionalized stupidity-by-choice. Dismissing some crank on the Internet who offhandedly mumbles something about eliminating mosquitoes with "what could go wrong?" is appropriate. Dismissing a serious article that seriously asks the question and considers the consequences is a disservice to everyone involved in the article. You're getting upvoted because you are giving people a chance to mentally feel good about their environmental bona fides because they upvoted you, not because you're making an even remotely valuable argument or contribution.
- mitjak 16y agoAgreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. The old "life would be so much easier without this little nature's imperfection" attitude has brought some unintended and tragic consequences more than once.
- mtomczak 16y agoThanks to the general availability and utilization of vaccines against smallpox and polio, massive improvements in sanitation and emergency response, and long-term cardiac therapy, the death rate due to cancers is radically up. Cancer is a horrible disesase. Which one of those changes should we not have made to end up in the situation we're in today?
- Jun8 16y agoI have often thought the same thing. I have no "moral" or any qualms about this. If we have eradicated smallpox why not the mosquitos or the AIDS virus. However, let's not go too fast on this: First, if you read the article, there's considerable disagreement among the scientists on what the effects of the disappearance of the mosquitos would be. Second, fiddling with super-complex systems without having even a rough estimate of the possible effects may be disasterous. Typical example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia, where success is mixed.
- iamwil 16y agoIt seems only cute animals deserve to be saved, and disease carrying ones eliminated. Whereas I hate mosquitoes as much as anyone, but they do have their ecological place. Pandas on the other hand...are suspect.
- sdfx 16y agoI agree that the effort and money spent on conservation is skewed in favor of cute and furry animals. But there is a real upside to getting rid of mosquitoes. From the article: Malaria infects some 247 million people worldwide each year, and kills nearly one million. Mosquitoes cause a huge further medical and financial burden by spreading yellow fever, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya virus and West Nile virus.
- sachinag 16y agoI once called someone I don't like a "human mosquito" because she added no value whatsoever to the world. Good to know that insult is now backed up with science.
- nazgulnarsil 16y agothe naturalistic fallacy is getting out of hand. I think it's entirely obvious how much the blind idiot god of evolution sucks. or did you want to give up your eyeglasses and allergy medication?
- mitjak 16y agoTwo words: population control. There are too many of us now for them to keep up though.
- xster 16y agoThe idea is solid and although I'm not completely sold yet, it's definitely worth more exploring. But my question is, why is this article written by an intern?>?!?!?!?
- seldo 16y agoThis seems a spectacularly foolish idea. Believing that we understand the emergent complexity of any ecosystem to the point that we can predictably alter it is a fallacy we've repeatedly disproven, and yet this is talking about altering the ecosystem of the entire planet.
- pkulak 16y agoWe wipe species off the planet all the time by accident. Sure, there would be some collateral damage, but you would save millions of _human_ lives a year.
- timr 16y ago"you would save millions of _human_ lives a year" ...and that fact, in itself, has long-term implications that we can't possibly understand.
- extension 16y agoEverything we do, or decline to do, has implications we can't understand. Second guessing ourselves into paralysis is silly and pointless. The best we can do is act on the implications that we do understand. When the benefit is 1M lives/year saved and there do not appear to be any drawbacks, it's damn well full steam ahead.
- sorbus 16y agoOverpopulation is a drawback, and a pretty major one.
- extension 16y agoOverpopulation is already a major problem in many places. Does human life in those places have negative value? Should we cull the population like deer? How is that any different from withholding the cure to a deadly disease?
- 16y ago
- ars 16y agoIn 2009 the first case of dengue fever in America since 1934 (also called breakbone fever due to the pain): http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/22/dengue.fever/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/22/dengue.fever/ and there have been 28 cases since. The reason is that DDT is wearing off and we are getting more mosquitoes.
- nollidge 16y agoHeadline is misleading. "Nature" doesn't have an opinion, it's asking a question and reporting the responses of relevant experts.
- javanix 16y agoYes. The "use original title" rule would work just fine in this case.
- danielford 16y agoI hate nature's flying dirty syringes as much as anyone else, but most of the proposed solutions are either localized to a certain area, or species-specific, or both. Why wouldn't we just start with the disease vector species, then check to see if their eradication had an environmental impact?
- AngryParsley 16y agoReversal test: If mosquitos didn't exist in the wild and some species of plants were dying off, would you be willing to reintroduce them to save the plants? Remember, around 250 million people get malaria every year. 1 million of them (mostly children) die from it. Based on the evidence available, I think the benefits of eliminating mosquitos outweigh the costs. If some plants have to die to save lives and reduce suffering, I'm fine with it.
- chanks 16y agoThen what effect will the plants dying have?
- AngryParsley 16y agoFrom the article: ...McAllister says that their pollination isn't crucial for crops on which humans depend. Compared to the lives of millions of people, not any effects I care about.
- chanks 16y agoUnless the crops are crucial for something else, which is crucial for ten other things, which are each crucial for ten more things, and so on. That's the danger.
- AngryParsley 16y agoThe scientists in the article assign low probability to that outcome. While species in the ecosystem are interconnected, but the degree of those connections varies greatly. Other species can fill most of the niches occupied by mosquitos, and they'll likely carry fewer diseases. You seem to be arguing from ignorance and advocating caution. I'd usually agree, but right now millions of people are dying and suffering because of mosquitos. With decisions this important, you can't just play the "what if?" card; you have to make the best choice after looking at the available evidence.
- ianferrel 16y ago
- simonsquiff 16y agoI've completely changed my mind about mosquitoes. I now think they provide a really important, fairly unique ecosystem role and it would be a disaster to get rid of them. What is it? Well they help recycle the food chain. Those that feed on us are taking energy from the top of the food chain (us) and they then are at the bottom of the food chain. The amount of animals that directly feed from mosquitoes is vast - insects, birds, fish, bats - who then also are part of the food chain themselves. It's a great role, for a bottom of the food chain animal to feed off the top of the food chain one - especially an animal (ourselves) that causes such ecosystem problems. If we get rid of mosquitoes what happens to the animals that feed of them? They need to eat something else, something that isn't getting part of its nourishment from the vast, untapped population of top of food chain animals.
- ars 16y agoMosquitoes eat flowers (nectar) not humans. Blood provides some protein for eggs, but is not the primary food for mosquitoes.
- telemachos 16y agoHas nobody at Nature ever read "A Sound of Thunder"? Seriously? http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/sound_of_thunder.htm http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/s...
- fuzzythinker 16y ago"the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms." Would the replacement(s) be more deadlier? I don't think anyone or any simulations can answer that.
- mike-cardwell 16y agoThere are two choices: 1.) 100s of millions of people dying of malaria 2.) 100s of millions of people not dying of malaria, but with likely unintended consequences, either negative or positive, or both. I'd pick number 2. Number 1 is a pretty bad choice. Worth the risk. Inaction is just as much a choice as action.
- fuzzythinker 16y agoor 3) unknown # (0-all) of people dying from the replacement(s)
- mike-cardwell 16y agoThat's a subset of 2
- wlievens 16y agoNaive suggestion: would it be practical, to experimentally do this on one island? For instance, eradicate all mosquitoes on Madagascar.
- sliverstorm 16y agoShouldn't we focus on getting rid of malaria rather than getting rid of mosquitoes? Their bites are not particularly worse than many other creatures, it's just the malaria that's the problem. I'm not sure what the best way to do it without wiping out mosquitoes is, but there has to be a way.