3 ms·

Given the sheer complexity of the systems under consideration here (entire ecosystems, species population dynamics, the potential genome-wide interactions of ev

by Reelin 8y ago

Given the sheer complexity of the systems under consideration here (entire ecosystems, species population dynamics, the potential genome-wide interactions of even a single DNA mutation, etc) it seems wholly unreasonable to reduce this to the extent of "children dying == bad". To carry this absurd approach out to a simplified extreme, what if unintended consequences somehow resulted in twice as many children dying per day but we had failed to predict this due to not investigating things fully enough in advance? Emotional appeal makes a very poor replacement for critical thinking.

shrimp_emoji 8y ago
>what if unintended consequences somehow resulted in twice as many children dying per day but we had failed to predict this due to not investigating things fully enough in advance? And yet no plausible scenario is seriously identified to deliver such unintended consequences, so a net decrease of dead children is to be expected. That's past "good enough" in most people's book. It helps that the effects would be indirect. Direct ones, like in the case of novel medicines, are scarier and harder to cope with. It's not easy to "try another body". But the indirect effect of, say, lower availability of certain food commodities due to bird and fish die-offs due to a dwindling mosquito population are as easy as "try other food sources".
- Reelin 8y ago
  I actually agree that this would presumably be a good thing to do. However, that's not because "children dying == bad" but rather precisely because a decent amount of research appears to have been directed at this idea already. My intent was not to question the merits of the stated goal, but instead to highlight the importance of critical analysis instead of emotionally based lines of thought.
danieltillett 8y ago
The idea is not to replace an emotional appeal with reason, but to wake people out of their complacency and have them face the reality of delay. Every day we wait we see another 3000 children die. On the science side we already know the ecological consequences of removing these mosquitos - nothing. They play no important role in any ecosystem. More fundamentally ecosystems are not this sensitive to the removal of a single species, they are incredibly robust because unstable ecosystems don't survive. Species come and go, but ecosystems are near immovable. The question comes down to a known massive bad outcome on one side (millions of kids dying) and a hypothetically and unmeasurably low risk on the other. What is the rational argument for delay?

by Reelin 8y ago

shrimp_emoji 8y ago

>what if unintended consequences somehow resulted in twice as many children dying per day but we had failed to predict this due to not investigating things fully enough in advance? And yet no plausible scenario is seriously identified to deliver such unintended consequences, so a net decrease of dead children is to be expected. That's past "good enough" in most people's book. It helps that the effects would be indirect. Direct ones, like in the case of novel medicines, are scarier and harder to cope with. It's not easy to "try another body". But the indirect effect of, say, lower availability of certain food commodities due to bird and fish die-offs due to a dwindling mosquito population are as easy as "try other food sources".

Reelin 8y ago
I actually agree that this would presumably be a good thing to do. However, that's not because "children dying == bad" but rather precisely because a decent amount of research appears to have been directed at this idea already. My intent was not to question the merits of the stated goal, but instead to highlight the importance of critical analysis instead of emotionally based lines of thought.

danieltillett 8y ago

The idea is not to replace an emotional appeal with reason, but to wake people out of their complacency and have them face the reality of delay. Every day we wait we see another 3000 children die. On the science side we already know the ecological consequences of removing these mosquitos - nothing. They play no important role in any ecosystem. More fundamentally ecosystems are not this sensitive to the removal of a single species, they are incredibly robust because unstable ecosystems don't survive. Species come and go, but ecosystems are near immovable. The question comes down to a known massive bad outcome on one side (millions of kids dying) and a hypothetically and unmeasurably low risk on the other. What is the rational argument for delay?