9 ms·
It is theorized there is no adverse effect from killing mosquito species. There is always a counter-effect. Typically it's unpredictable. Mosquitoes FACILITA
by billions 8y ago
It is theorized there is no adverse effect from killing mosquito species. There is always a counter-effect. Typically it's unpredictable. Mosquitoes FACILITATE transmission of bad stuff. I believe that if bad stuff is not transmitted, species evolve more slowly against pathogens. Species will still be exposed, maybe generations later through a scratch or otherwise. At that point, having never evolved a strong immune system the same animals will be less prepared. It's not whether the American Indians were to die from European diseases, but when.
- everdev 8y agoI remember this was the big debate several years ago when the idea was first promoted. However, Google and some non-profits appear to be moving ahead with the blessing of local governments. I'm assuming that with the relatively short lifespan of mosquitos and birds, we'll be able to see if there's an unintended chain reaction in these local ecosystems in a few years time.
- ehsankia 8y agoIt's because the specific specie they target isn't even native to that place (it was introduced by humans), and also represent a small fraction of all musquitos in the area.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoSo, we messed with the balance before and it went badly, ... that's not logically a sufficient reason to mess with the balance in the eco-system again expecting unmitigated benefits. When one gets stabbed withdrawing the knife (which follows the same logic) can kill you. As for small fractions, ecological systems are usually pretty chaotic (in the mathematical sense of small perturbations being able to produce massive changes).
- maxerickson 8y agoWiping out malaria is likely to do just that (wipe out malaria).
- avip 8y agoThere are always complex consequences, but note that Aedes aegypti is human-introduced in Australia to start with. It's an intrusive species, it may be safe to eradicate.
- superflyguy 8y agoJudging by the name it'll be safe to wipe them out everywhere except Egypt then?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ehsankia 8y agoYep, same in Fresno. Honestly in most places, they're only able to survive because of humans and people who over water their lawn specifically. The climate in these places are generically not made for that specie. It's also worth noting that there are many other types of musquito around so they're not wiping out all musquito, just that one specie which consist of a small fraction of all musquitos
- starpilot 8y agoCouldn't the same be said for any form of medicine or protection that helps people survive? Should we remove all of it so that more people die, to hasten evolution?
- brlewis 8y agoDid American Indians not die from European diseases in areas with lots of mosquitoes?
- dosy 8y agoAgreed. Ecosystems are a delicate balance. Who knows what chaos will be unleashed by tampering with them? Especially species facilitating horizontal gene transfer. Pathogen vector may be only one of the functions of the mosquito. Perhaps by simply existing and occupying so much of a certain pathway they are keeping other pathogens at bay or preventing other viruses from evolving, perhaps down paths that, after the pressure of not having mosquito as a carrier, selects for more powerful pathogens that can thrive without mosquitoes. Sometimes having a tolerable evil we know is better than one we don't. Perhaps what we are really doing with ending mosquitoes is putting selective pressure on the pathogens formerly carried by them to find innovative, and possibly worse-for-us, ways to evolve and spread.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago> Who knows what chaos will be unleashed by tampering with them? It's a good question. And the same thing could be said about any disease prevention strategy. What if the persistent presence of Polio is necessary for us to survive some future hypothesised outbreak? Imagination is the limit here. But we certainly do know the chaos that is unleashed everyday by not eradicating viruses that use mosquitoes as a vector.
- fipar 8y ago> But we certainly do know the chaos that is unleashed everyday by not eradicating viruses that use mosquitoes as a vector. Note however that here they are erradicating mosquitoes and not the virus.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoWhat’s the point of this comment?
- fipar 8y agoErradicating a mosquito species could have negative ecological consequences unknown now, and on top of that, there’s the risk of another vector taking the mosquito’s place.
- ABCLAW 8y agoThis is why they're taking it slow; they're not worried about knock on issues with our herd immunity. They're worried about ecological collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign "The "Four Pests" campaign was introduced in 1958 by Mao Zedong, as a hygiene campaign aimed to eradicate the pests responsible for the transmission of pestilence and disease: the mosquitos responsible for malaria; the rodents that spread the plague; the pervasive airborne flies; and the sparrows – specifically the Eurasian tree sparrow – which ate grain seed and fruit.[1] [...] By April 1960, Chinese leaders changed their opinion due to the influence of ornithologist Tso-hsin Cheng[2] who pointed out that sparrows ate a large number of insects, as well as grains.[8][9] Rather than being increased, rice yields after the campaign were substantially decreased.[10][9] Mao ordered the end of the campaign against sparrows, replacing them with bed bugs, as the extermination of the former upset the ecological balance, and bugs destroyed crops as a result of the absence of natural predators. By this time, however, it was too late. With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[10] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine, in which 20–45 million people died of starvation.[11][12][Emphasis added]"
- pm90 8y agoIts important to differentiate b/w the plans of a politician and the plans of research scientists who have done actual work in this area. Mao's plans seem to have been a hare-brained solution to China's problems (and they're not the only one. Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward cost more lives than both the world wars... and they were all Chinese lives).
- JackCh 8y ago> "Its important to differentiate b/w the plans of a politician and the plans of research scientists who have done actual work in this area." Not really, because the general public won't take such care with the differentiating. The more scientists deliberately exterminate or cull animals, the more the public will grow accustomed to the idea of humanity taking such an active violent role in the environment. And the more the public grow accustomed to that idea, the more they'll be willing to fall in line behind politicians who try to do the same. Particularly when those politicians claim science as their justification (numerous disastrous examples in the 20th century.) The ethical analysis performed by scientists looking to justify exterminations should include the social impact of their actions. Scientist and engineer sorts often loath considering such factors.
- hayksaakian 8y agoDo mosquitos control other, more harmful pests that might see a resurgence if mosquitos disappear?
- pm90 8y agoToo many human lives are lost directly due to this species. I'm willing to bear the risk of adverse consequences, if any are found.
- franciscop 8y agoEvolution requires deaths, so the cost is millions of people dying! Until we understand better the cost, I think it's reasonable to put it on hold as much as possible