6 ms·

> “To be honest with you, if there were some kind of emergency and one absolutely needed to do it, we could pretty much do it.” I can not understand this comme

> “To be honest with you, if there were some kind of emergency and one absolutely needed to do it, we could pretty much do it.” I can not understand this comment. How is 438,000 annual deaths not an emergency!? We DO absolutely need to do it!

UncleEntity 8y ago
Two words: unintended consequences. We humans don't really have a very good track record of dealing with the things Nature throws at us as can be seen with countless examples invasive species (imported to solve some problem or other) wrecking havoc on native species, super-germs &etc. I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? Humans have a natural immunity to malaria but nobody is saying we need to genetically modify everyone to have sickle cell anemia.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? I am guilty of not reading the entire discussion here, so I apologize if this is a derail, but historically they outright eradicated the mosquitoes on some island... Which led to other things dying that ate the mosquitoes... Which led to yet more things dying. I am failing to find a source, but maybe this blog post references it: During WWII the Navy (which had a large base on the island) sprayed the village heavily with DDT to cut down the mosquito population. As you might imagine, DDT killed the mosquitoes...and most of the frogs, and is suspected of contributing to a number of cancer deaths on Ocracoke. https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-control.html https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-contr...
  - modeless 8y ago
    DDT affects a lot more than just mosquitos. A gene drive wouldn't even kill all mosquitos, just the specific ones that spread human diseases. You can't compare the effects.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I wasn't comparing the effects, just supporting the idea that unintended consequences are a thing and suggesting we even have a historical precedent involving mosquitoes per se should anyone be interested in trying to find a better source for the incident.
    - djsumdog 8y ago
      DDT was labeled as safe. It was sprayed on kids at swimming pools. Now we know it weakens birds eggs, and causes birth defects. It's not a matter of it this genetic modification would have consequences, but what will those consequences and side effects be? Our ecosystem is insanely complex, as show by the Biosphere II project. You can't just try to surgically alter one part without lots of unintended effects down the line.
  - pseudonom- 8y ago
    From the article: "That might sound disturbing from an ecological perspective, but mosquitoes don’t make up a significant portion of any known predator’s diet; there’s just not a lot of meat there. “So far there’s no evidence really that seems to show that Anopheles gambiae is a key species in the ecosystem,” Jonathan Kayondo, a senior research officer at the Uganda Virus Research Institute and a member of Target Malaria’s scientific team, told Fong. “There’s nothing that exclusively feeds on it. So I’m finding it hard to see how that would collapse the ecosystem, because that’s the fear most people have.”
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      Took like 10 seconds to find a species that likes to munch on the mosquitos --> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000132 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
      - danieltillett 8y ago
        You do realise that there is more than one species of mosquito? The human pathogen spreading species (less than 1% of all mosquito species) play no important role in any natural ecosystem.
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        Well, you see, what I did is search for the specific mosquito from the quoted text and found a link to a species of spider who's primary food source is the very same mosquito being discussed. So either the scientist isn't very good at the google or just doesn't like "vampire spiders" and is lying about there being no predators for this mosquito. Whichever way you look at it this is the person you're trusting to release genetically modified organisms into the wild.
        BenjiWiebe 8y ago
        Without looking it up, I don't think I'd like vampire spiders very much either.
  - HumanHater 8y ago
    Yet another reason to exterminate mosquitoes ASAP. People would continue to use every weapon available to kill them even just because they are annoying. However most chemicals we use today affect basically all insects. So we either eradicate mosquitoes now or continue to watch decline of bee population. I personally would chose bees over mosquitoes any day of the year.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I personally would chose bees over mosquitoes any day of the year. That sounds like a wise preference.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  What about the intended consequences? I personally would like to put on trial for crimes against humanity ever single person arguing for a delay in using this technology. Let them argue in court why hundreds of thousands of people (mostly young children and pregnant women) should die every year so they can pontificate about "unintended consequences" from the comfort of their armchairs. For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria and removing all human pathogen spreading mosquitos would have no direct impact on any natural ecosystem.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Speaking about young children and pregnant women... I thought the "unintended consequences" of thalidomide was common knowledge and seen as a warning against the "look before you leap" mentality you're advocating.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      The totally stupid thalidomide argument can be used to oppose anything new. It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        So basically your argument is we have this wonder cure (that may not even work, who knows?) that involves modifying the building blocks of life (which we barely understand) and we should just release it into the wild because "won't somebody, please, think of the children!" Think The Simpsons did an episode on this involving gorillas and snakes or something. Oh, and anyone who thinks that it's maybe is a good idea to study this irreversible idea a bit beforehand should be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity. And the thalidomide incident lead to the total rethinking on how drugs were approved throughout the world so the fact that it was or wasn't approved by the FDA is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it was the catalyst of change that keeps people from willy-nilly releasing genetically modified insects into the wild today. As far as I can tell they are actively working on this idea with test releases in Florida (on non-native mosquitoes) so it's not like anyone is trying to kill this idea as you imply. Ok, to be fair, some people are trying to kill this idea but that hasn't stopped them from releasing genetically modified mutants into the wild.

UncleEntity 8y ago

Two words: unintended consequences. We humans don't really have a very good track record of dealing with the things Nature throws at us as can be seen with countless examples invasive species (imported to solve some problem or other) wrecking havoc on native species, super-germs &etc. I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? Humans have a natural immunity to malaria but nobody is saying we need to genetically modify everyone to have sickle cell anemia.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I seem to recall reading that mosquitos are a staple food source for birds or bats or something, what could possibly go wrong with killing them all off? I am guilty of not reading the entire discussion here, so I apologize if this is a derail, but historically they outright eradicated the mosquitoes on some island... Which led to other things dying that ate the mosquitoes... Which led to yet more things dying. I am failing to find a source, but maybe this blog post references it: During WWII the Navy (which had a large base on the island) sprayed the village heavily with DDT to cut down the mosquito population. As you might imagine, DDT killed the mosquitoes...and most of the frogs, and is suspected of contributing to a number of cancer deaths on Ocracoke. https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-control.html https://villagecraftsmen.blogspot.com/2011/09/mosquito-contr...
- modeless 8y ago
  DDT affects a lot more than just mosquitos. A gene drive wouldn't even kill all mosquitos, just the specific ones that spread human diseases. You can't compare the effects.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I wasn't comparing the effects, just supporting the idea that unintended consequences are a thing and suggesting we even have a historical precedent involving mosquitoes per se should anyone be interested in trying to find a better source for the incident.
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    DDT was labeled as safe. It was sprayed on kids at swimming pools. Now we know it weakens birds eggs, and causes birth defects. It's not a matter of it this genetic modification would have consequences, but what will those consequences and side effects be? Our ecosystem is insanely complex, as show by the Biosphere II project. You can't just try to surgically alter one part without lots of unintended effects down the line.
- pseudonom- 8y ago
  From the article: "That might sound disturbing from an ecological perspective, but mosquitoes don’t make up a significant portion of any known predator’s diet; there’s just not a lot of meat there. “So far there’s no evidence really that seems to show that Anopheles gambiae is a key species in the ecosystem,” Jonathan Kayondo, a senior research officer at the Uganda Virus Research Institute and a member of Target Malaria’s scientific team, told Fong. “There’s nothing that exclusively feeds on it. So I’m finding it hard to see how that would collapse the ecosystem, because that’s the fear most people have.”
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Took like 10 seconds to find a species that likes to munch on the mosquitos --> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000132 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      You do realise that there is more than one species of mosquito? The human pathogen spreading species (less than 1% of all mosquito species) play no important role in any natural ecosystem.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        Well, you see, what I did is search for the specific mosquito from the quoted text and found a link to a species of spider who's primary food source is the very same mosquito being discussed. So either the scientist isn't very good at the google or just doesn't like "vampire spiders" and is lying about there being no predators for this mosquito. Whichever way you look at it this is the person you're trusting to release genetically modified organisms into the wild.
        BenjiWiebe 8y ago
        Without looking it up, I don't think I'd like vampire spiders very much either.
- HumanHater 8y ago
  Yet another reason to exterminate mosquitoes ASAP. People would continue to use every weapon available to kill them even just because they are annoying. However most chemicals we use today affect basically all insects. So we either eradicate mosquitoes now or continue to watch decline of bee population. I personally would chose bees over mosquitoes any day of the year.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I personally would chose bees over mosquitoes any day of the year. That sounds like a wise preference.
danieltillett 8y ago
What about the intended consequences? I personally would like to put on trial for crimes against humanity ever single person arguing for a delay in using this technology. Let them argue in court why hundreds of thousands of people (mostly young children and pregnant women) should die every year so they can pontificate about "unintended consequences" from the comfort of their armchairs. For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria and removing all human pathogen spreading mosquitos would have no direct impact on any natural ecosystem.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Speaking about young children and pregnant women... I thought the "unintended consequences" of thalidomide was common knowledge and seen as a warning against the "look before you leap" mentality you're advocating.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    The totally stupid thalidomide argument can be used to oppose anything new. It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      So basically your argument is we have this wonder cure (that may not even work, who knows?) that involves modifying the building blocks of life (which we barely understand) and we should just release it into the wild because "won't somebody, please, think of the children!" Think The Simpsons did an episode on this involving gorillas and snakes or something. Oh, and anyone who thinks that it's maybe is a good idea to study this irreversible idea a bit beforehand should be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity. And the thalidomide incident lead to the total rethinking on how drugs were approved throughout the world so the fact that it was or wasn't approved by the FDA is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it was the catalyst of change that keeps people from willy-nilly releasing genetically modified insects into the wild today. As far as I can tell they are actively working on this idea with test releases in Florida (on non-native mosquitoes) so it's not like anyone is trying to kill this idea as you imply. Ok, to be fair, some people are trying to kill this idea but that hasn't stopped them from releasing genetically modified mutants into the wild.