3 ms·

IMO The lack of mosquitos is the single positive aspect of a crippled nature. Allegedly a Pharao had a slave covered in honey to get some peace from those beast

by singularity2001 8y ago

IMO The lack of mosquitos is the single positive aspect of a crippled nature. Allegedly a Pharao had a slave covered in honey to get some peace from those beasts. New Zealand is paradise except that on some beaches you just can't stop unless you want to get drained.

jaggederest 8y ago
Yes, I just think they're the most durable bastards out there, and if they're being affected by whatever it is, surely all the more shy and retiring species are basically gone as well. If we were being deliberate, sure, a targeted assassination of the Anopheles mosquito might not be a bad thing. But I don't get that sense at all... More like collateral damage.
sametmax 8y ago
For your human comfort yes. But mosquitoes are part of the food chain, and also help mixing blood from very different species. This, in turn, allow micro-organisms that should never meet to interact with each others, giving a new path to biodiversity. As annoying as it is, it's a useful critter. You see, the way you react is the very cause of our current troubles: we only see the living systems as a way to please us, and only on the short term. When they don't please us, we start hating them, and find a way to bend them to our will. Now we destroyed most of the systems, or at least their balance, and we are painfully discovering that it may dooms us all. So let's try to adopt a different point of view before we face even more terrible consequences of our gluttonous actions.
- mratzloff 8y ago
  Just to clear, there are about 3500 or 4000 species of mosquitoes, and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. That would leave thousands to continue pollinating and serving as food for fish, frogs, and other wildlife.
  - marliechiller 8y ago
    > and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. for humans yes - which was his point. looking at this from a human perspective is a problem. there are likely unknown consequences elsewhere in the food chain if we completely eradicate a species for our own gain
    - sten 8y ago
      Isn't it the case that we just need to wipe out mosquitoes in an area long enough for malaria to die off? Didn't that happen in the US with DDT, the mosquitoes came back but the malaria stayed away. Or am I mistaken? Though frankly I'd be willing to risk them gone for good.
    - mratzloff 8y ago
      No, in this case. That was my point. Those individual species would have no impact on the overall ecosystem.

jaggederest 8y ago

Yes, I just think they're the most durable bastards out there, and if they're being affected by whatever it is, surely all the more shy and retiring species are basically gone as well. If we were being deliberate, sure, a targeted assassination of the Anopheles mosquito might not be a bad thing. But I don't get that sense at all... More like collateral damage.

sametmax 8y ago

For your human comfort yes. But mosquitoes are part of the food chain, and also help mixing blood from very different species. This, in turn, allow micro-organisms that should never meet to interact with each others, giving a new path to biodiversity. As annoying as it is, it's a useful critter. You see, the way you react is the very cause of our current troubles: we only see the living systems as a way to please us, and only on the short term. When they don't please us, we start hating them, and find a way to bend them to our will. Now we destroyed most of the systems, or at least their balance, and we are painfully discovering that it may dooms us all. So let's try to adopt a different point of view before we face even more terrible consequences of our gluttonous actions.

mratzloff 8y ago
Just to clear, there are about 3500 or 4000 species of mosquitoes, and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. That would leave thousands to continue pollinating and serving as food for fish, frogs, and other wildlife.
- marliechiller 8y ago
  > and if we eradicated the tiny handful that carry malaria, Zika, etc. it would only have positive results. for humans yes - which was his point. looking at this from a human perspective is a problem. there are likely unknown consequences elsewhere in the food chain if we completely eradicate a species for our own gain
  - sten 8y ago
    Isn't it the case that we just need to wipe out mosquitoes in an area long enough for malaria to die off? Didn't that happen in the US with DDT, the mosquitoes came back but the malaria stayed away. Or am I mistaken? Though frankly I'd be willing to risk them gone for good.
  - mratzloff 8y ago
    No, in this case. That was my point. Those individual species would have no impact on the overall ecosystem.