14 ms·

Everyone questioning the wisdom of eliminating "all mosquitos": only a very small number of mosquito sub-species are capable of transmitting malaria to humans.

Everyone questioning the wisdom of eliminating "all mosquitos": only a very small number of mosquito sub-species are capable of transmitting malaria to humans. The plan is to target those sub-species only. Other forms of mosquitos would fill in the gaps in the food-chain.

daddylonglegs 8y ago
A nitpick, this would aimed at eliminating complete species rather than sub-species. There are thousands of species of mosquito, a handful of those species account for almost all transmission of mosquito-borne, human diseases. Almost all ecological niches would be filled by other species. The capability for human disease transmission would be greatly reduced but not - I think - completely eliminated. There are reasonable worries about something like this but I'm in favour because malaria really does kill an awful lot of people. We have already massively changed insect populations around the world with land use changes, species introductions and pesticides (including the continuously needed mosquito control). Also, I would think that a gene drive that eliminates populations is self-limiting, to the extent that it works, whereas other genetic interventions would stay around indefinitely and be subject to mutation at any point. Edit: I think the greatest ecological change would be as a consequence of the increase in human impact that followed the increase in wellbeing in the worst affected areas. I'm not going to begrudge that.
imron 8y ago
> The plan is to target those sub-species only. How does the saying go? The best laid plans of mice and men always work out exactly as predicted and never suffer from unintended consequences. Just like cane toads and prickly pear.
- jhabdas 8y ago
  Smartest guy in the room right there. And all they needed was to genetically engineer some cicak for shitty weather.
- Jedd 8y ago
  > Just like cane toads and prickly pear. Happily we're (I'm speaking on behalf of people way smarter than myself) getting much, much better at this. An article on Vox, discussed here 4 months ago, is just one poignant example of the level of introspection and caution being exercised by everyone involved in these trials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676 "Kevin Esvelt wants me to know that if I fuck up this article, 25,000 children could end up dead." The whole article is a tremendously compelling read. I'm usually pretty wary of the whole 'we've come a long way since ...', but in this realm we really do appear to have done exactly that. The 1920/1930's attitudes could best be described as incautious (more accurately as brazen, cowboy, insouciant, etc). Cane toads and prickly pear (and tiger pear and heliotrope and rabbits and hudsons pear and ...) are pests whose impact are nearly impossible to describe to people outside the ecosystems impacted by them, but the people dealing with these things are so much better informed than the lab techs of a hundred years ago and know that if they fuck it up, there'll be a wiki page about them that'll last another hundred years.
tmaly 8y ago
I am all for it. Have you ever tried to sit out on a deck on a warm summer night?
- snarf21 8y ago
  Stupid nature.

daddylonglegs 8y ago

A nitpick, this would aimed at eliminating complete species rather than sub-species. There are thousands of species of mosquito, a handful of those species account for almost all transmission of mosquito-borne, human diseases. Almost all ecological niches would be filled by other species. The capability for human disease transmission would be greatly reduced but not - I think - completely eliminated. There are reasonable worries about something like this but I'm in favour because malaria really does kill an awful lot of people. We have already massively changed insect populations around the world with land use changes, species introductions and pesticides (including the continuously needed mosquito control). Also, I would think that a gene drive that eliminates populations is self-limiting, to the extent that it works, whereas other genetic interventions would stay around indefinitely and be subject to mutation at any point. Edit: I think the greatest ecological change would be as a consequence of the increase in human impact that followed the increase in wellbeing in the worst affected areas. I'm not going to begrudge that.

imron 8y ago

> The plan is to target those sub-species only. How does the saying go? The best laid plans of mice and men always work out exactly as predicted and never suffer from unintended consequences. Just like cane toads and prickly pear.

jhabdas 8y ago
Smartest guy in the room right there. And all they needed was to genetically engineer some cicak for shitty weather.
Jedd 8y ago
> Just like cane toads and prickly pear. Happily we're (I'm speaking on behalf of people way smarter than myself) getting much, much better at this. An article on Vox, discussed here 4 months ago, is just one poignant example of the level of introspection and caution being exercised by everyone involved in these trials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214676 "Kevin Esvelt wants me to know that if I fuck up this article, 25,000 children could end up dead." The whole article is a tremendously compelling read. I'm usually pretty wary of the whole 'we've come a long way since ...', but in this realm we really do appear to have done exactly that. The 1920/1930's attitudes could best be described as incautious (more accurately as brazen, cowboy, insouciant, etc). Cane toads and prickly pear (and tiger pear and heliotrope and rabbits and hudsons pear and ...) are pests whose impact are nearly impossible to describe to people outside the ecosystems impacted by them, but the people dealing with these things are so much better informed than the lab techs of a hundred years ago and know that if they fuck it up, there'll be a wiki page about them that'll last another hundred years.

tmaly 8y ago

I am all for it. Have you ever tried to sit out on a deck on a warm summer night?

snarf21 8y ago
Stupid nature.