4 ms·

This is an emotional argument. I don't believe opposition is about morals, it's about concern over messing with the food chain. It would be incredibly naive to

This is an emotional argument. I don't believe opposition is about morals, it's about concern over messing with the food chain. It would be incredibly naive to think we can mess with the food chain consequence free. What if crashing the species results in millions of people dying? Will you write a letter to all those mothers? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but we need to know exactly what effects it will have first. And "grieving mothers" is not sufficient.

danieltillett 8y ago
Of course it is an emotional argument - it is meant to make concrete what is really happening right now as we dither. The ecosystem will be fine without the mosquito species that transmit malaria and even if it wasn't it is a price worth paying. This whole argument is stupid anyway as we already know that killing off these mosquito species in the places where rich people live does not cause the ecosystem to crash.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ArchTypical 8y ago
> "grieving mothers" is not sufficient. Historically, the species that threaten humans (or are tasty to humans), gets virtually wiped out. There's nothing new or scary about the proposition. Species aren't sacred, as every species dies out and has been replaced by others, countless times for all manner of reasons. Maybe it promotes something worse. There will always be other dangers to contend with.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Malaria is the number one historical killer of humanity period. I believe that qualifies on practival grounds. Its death has been long overdue and I would say we have a moral imperative to eradicate the greatest threat to our species.
sampo 8y ago
> What if crashing the species results in millions of people dying? Do you know of any actual ecologist who thinks that those particular species are vital to the functioning of those ecosystems? Here is one ecologist who thinks the removal of some mosquito species would be quite harmless: "Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better." https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

danieltillett 8y ago

Of course it is an emotional argument - it is meant to make concrete what is really happening right now as we dither. The ecosystem will be fine without the mosquito species that transmit malaria and even if it wasn't it is a price worth paying. This whole argument is stupid anyway as we already know that killing off these mosquito species in the places where rich people live does not cause the ecosystem to crash.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ArchTypical 8y ago

> "grieving mothers" is not sufficient. Historically, the species that threaten humans (or are tasty to humans), gets virtually wiped out. There's nothing new or scary about the proposition. Species aren't sacred, as every species dies out and has been replaced by others, countless times for all manner of reasons. Maybe it promotes something worse. There will always be other dangers to contend with.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Malaria is the number one historical killer of humanity period. I believe that qualifies on practival grounds. Its death has been long overdue and I would say we have a moral imperative to eradicate the greatest threat to our species.

sampo 8y ago

> What if crashing the species results in millions of people dying? Do you know of any actual ecologist who thinks that those particular species are vital to the functioning of those ecosystems? Here is one ecologist who thinks the removal of some mosquito species would be quite harmless: "Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better." https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html