3 ms·

Reversal 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? Rem

Reversal 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 ago
Then what effect will the plants dying have?
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  From 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 ago
    Unless 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 ago
      The 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
If we managed to eliminate mosquitos, malaria would go with it, just as it has in many developed nations. Afterward, we could reintroduce mosquitos without nearly the risk of malaria we have now. I'm not sure how true that is of other diseases for which mosquitos are a vector.
- chroma 16y ago
  The purpose of the reversal test is to eliminate status quo bias, not actually pretend the situation is true and offer better solutions. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf explains it better than I can (around page 9).

chanks 16y ago

Then what effect will the plants dying have?

AngryParsley 16y ago
From 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 ago
  Unless 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 ago
    The 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

If we managed to eliminate mosquitos, malaria would go with it, just as it has in many developed nations. Afterward, we could reintroduce mosquitos without nearly the risk of malaria we have now. I'm not sure how true that is of other diseases for which mosquitos are a vector.

chroma 16y ago
The purpose of the reversal test is to eliminate status quo bias, not actually pretend the situation is true and offer better solutions. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf explains it better than I can (around page 9).