23 ms·

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 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 ago
I'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 ago
Your 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Insects are animals.
  - ugh 16y ago
    I 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.

davidw 16y ago

I'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 ago

Your 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Insects are animals.
- ugh 16y ago
  I 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.