5 ms·

That's a really bad attitude to take. It isn't that people don't care, it's that they worry about larger consequences. How about everyone who supports this writ

That's a really bad attitude to take. It isn't that people don't care, it's that they worry about larger consequences. How about everyone who supports this write a letter to everyone on the earth explaining why they aren't worried about potential environmental collapse due to obliterating a key pollinator? Note: I'm not sure what the actual risk is, I believe the general consensus is that non-malaria-carrying mosquito species will quickly fill in the ecological gap, but the point is that science and policy should look into the actual consequences, not make a knee-jerk reaction based on the more immediately noticeable appeal to emotion.

sampo 8y ago
> obliterating a key pollinator? Are any of the malaria-carrying mosquitoes key pollinators? Please cite your sources.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  No there are not.
- jon_richards 8y ago
  >I'm not sure what the actual risk is Sorry, I tried to make it clear that I'm not actually up-to-date on the science and that I was arguing against the attitude, not the position.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
Do you have any evidence that any reasonably foreseeable consequence is greater than 3000 children a day dying? If not, given that you know with a high degree of certainty that 3000 children are dying every die while there is a delay, it seems prudent to proceed as quickly as possible.
danieltillett 8y ago
The species of mosquito that transmit malaria are not key pollinators in any ecosystem. We already know what happens in the places where rich people live when these species are killed - nothing other than people stop dying of malaria. It is fine for us rich people to pontificate over ecosystems and possible unintended consequences, it is another for those poor people that have to watch their children dying in their arms.
madrox 8y ago
This is a logical trap. Mostly because people who worry about larger consequences can't satisfactorily describe how those can be evaluated. It's simply a lingering question that cannot be answered. If we treated every issue this way, nothing would ever happen, because larger consequences can never be perfectly foreseen. Put another way, imagine you had a drug that cured the fatal illness of a family member. That drug was known to be safe for individuals to take. However, no one could receive the drug until a study was performed to understand how a decline in the mortality rate would affect the population. It's questionable whether your family member would survive until that study was performed. How would you feel?
- bencollier49 8y ago
  That's a false equivalence. People have some knowledge of ecosystems, and they understand that removing a major component of an ecosystem might have catastrophic effects. Making a small change to the survivability of humanity is not comparable, and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    > and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance I agree, but would also like to point out that as technology in general becomes more "powerful" (for lack of a better term) ever increasing levels of precaution are inevitably going to be called for. The Wright brothers certainly didn't need to be regulated, but I'm glad SpaceX is...
- Reelin 8y ago
  I believe that the point being made by the person you're replying to isn't to avoid acting until future effects can be perfectly foreseen, as that milestone will generally never be reached. Rather, the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. Put another way, if something can be trivially reversed and can't reasonably be predicted to result in any severe negative effects, then not much analysis is called for. On the other hand, if something can be reasonably expected to have a lasting impact, particularly a negative one, careful analysis prior to action is much more important. In cases where it's difficult even to articulate the approximate range of possible effects, a thorough analysis becomes extremely important.

sampo 8y ago

> obliterating a key pollinator? Are any of the malaria-carrying mosquitoes key pollinators? Please cite your sources.

danieltillett 8y ago
No there are not.
jon_richards 8y ago
>I'm not sure what the actual risk is Sorry, I tried to make it clear that I'm not actually up-to-date on the science and that I was arguing against the attitude, not the position.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

Do you have any evidence that any reasonably foreseeable consequence is greater than 3000 children a day dying? If not, given that you know with a high degree of certainty that 3000 children are dying every die while there is a delay, it seems prudent to proceed as quickly as possible.

danieltillett 8y ago

The species of mosquito that transmit malaria are not key pollinators in any ecosystem. We already know what happens in the places where rich people live when these species are killed - nothing other than people stop dying of malaria. It is fine for us rich people to pontificate over ecosystems and possible unintended consequences, it is another for those poor people that have to watch their children dying in their arms.

madrox 8y ago

This is a logical trap. Mostly because people who worry about larger consequences can't satisfactorily describe how those can be evaluated. It's simply a lingering question that cannot be answered. If we treated every issue this way, nothing would ever happen, because larger consequences can never be perfectly foreseen. Put another way, imagine you had a drug that cured the fatal illness of a family member. That drug was known to be safe for individuals to take. However, no one could receive the drug until a study was performed to understand how a decline in the mortality rate would affect the population. It's questionable whether your family member would survive until that study was performed. How would you feel?

bencollier49 8y ago
That's a false equivalence. People have some knowledge of ecosystems, and they understand that removing a major component of an ecosystem might have catastrophic effects. Making a small change to the survivability of humanity is not comparable, and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance.
- Reelin 8y ago
  > and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance I agree, but would also like to point out that as technology in general becomes more "powerful" (for lack of a better term) ever increasing levels of precaution are inevitably going to be called for. The Wright brothers certainly didn't need to be regulated, but I'm glad SpaceX is...
Reelin 8y ago
I believe that the point being made by the person you're replying to isn't to avoid acting until future effects can be perfectly foreseen, as that milestone will generally never be reached. Rather, the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. Put another way, if something can be trivially reversed and can't reasonably be predicted to result in any severe negative effects, then not much analysis is called for. On the other hand, if something can be reasonably expected to have a lasting impact, particularly a negative one, careful analysis prior to action is much more important. In cases where it's difficult even to articulate the approximate range of possible effects, a thorough analysis becomes extremely important.