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 acco

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.