4 ms·

Why should spraying and biological control be our only options? HN has had a bunch of stories lately on using CRISPR and gene drive to render entire populations

Why should spraying and biological control be our only options? HN has had a bunch of stories lately on using CRISPR and gene drive to render entire populations infertile. Let's do that here and make this species extinct.

tptacek 8y ago
Probably because we're not generally in the habit of rendering entire species extinct simply because they've been transported by humans out of their natural habitat?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I expect we'll see a lot more at least partially serious calls for this as more species have to migrate due to changing climate.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Is it necessary in its native habitat either? If it's a pure pest, we should have no qualms about getting rid of it. That we haven't historically done that (except for smallpox) isn't a good argument for not doing it, especially since the technology for making it easy is just now becoming available. You do have an argument about ecosystem cascades and food chain disruption inveighing against arbitrary extinction of pests, but we should evaluate these things on a case by case basis and not just assume that any species we eradicate is "load bearing". Many species aren't.
- fouric 8y ago
  If care is taken to ensure that none of the genetically altered species members make it back to their native region (Asia), then we wouldn't extinguish the entire species, just the ones over here, where they're not part of our natural ecosystem.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Another option is to look for genetic markers in the invaders. When a population expsndd from a small base, whatever allelee common in that base become common in the expanded population even when these alleles are uncommon in the species as a whole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That's an almost tautological argument, since the premise under which we'd be exterminating them is that we weren't able to prevent that kind of migration from happening.
    - fouric 8y ago
      While any migration of an invasive species generally situates the species in its new region permanently until something kills it off (and as such you must continually guard against invasive species entering), we would only have to prevent re-migrations of the "tainted" species back to their native regions for the amount of time that it would take them to die out due to the sterilization. Much easier. Edit: relaxed claims.
  - aarongough 8y ago
    Care was taken to make sure these invasive species didn't get imported in the first place, but clearly that didn't work... What makes you think preventing the altered species from being transported back will be any more successful?
    - fouric 8y ago
      Because we somehow managed to _not_ import them for several decades/centuries before one finally slipped through, and we only have to avoid exporting them until they die out, which sounds like it would only take a few years.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Obviously, we managed to _not_ import them during eras where travel and trade between continents was far rarer.

tptacek 8y ago

Probably because we're not generally in the habit of rendering entire species extinct simply because they've been transported by humans out of their natural habitat?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I expect we'll see a lot more at least partially serious calls for this as more species have to migrate due to changing climate.
quotemstr 8y ago
Is it necessary in its native habitat either? If it's a pure pest, we should have no qualms about getting rid of it. That we haven't historically done that (except for smallpox) isn't a good argument for not doing it, especially since the technology for making it easy is just now becoming available. You do have an argument about ecosystem cascades and food chain disruption inveighing against arbitrary extinction of pests, but we should evaluate these things on a case by case basis and not just assume that any species we eradicate is "load bearing". Many species aren't.
fouric 8y ago
If care is taken to ensure that none of the genetically altered species members make it back to their native region (Asia), then we wouldn't extinguish the entire species, just the ones over here, where they're not part of our natural ecosystem.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Another option is to look for genetic markers in the invaders. When a population expsndd from a small base, whatever allelee common in that base become common in the expanded population even when these alleles are uncommon in the species as a whole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
- tptacek 8y ago
  That's an almost tautological argument, since the premise under which we'd be exterminating them is that we weren't able to prevent that kind of migration from happening.
  - fouric 8y ago
    While any migration of an invasive species generally situates the species in its new region permanently until something kills it off (and as such you must continually guard against invasive species entering), we would only have to prevent re-migrations of the "tainted" species back to their native regions for the amount of time that it would take them to die out due to the sterilization. Much easier. Edit: relaxed claims.
- aarongough 8y ago
  Care was taken to make sure these invasive species didn't get imported in the first place, but clearly that didn't work... What makes you think preventing the altered species from being transported back will be any more successful?
  - fouric 8y ago
    Because we somehow managed to _not_ import them for several decades/centuries before one finally slipped through, and we only have to avoid exporting them until they die out, which sounds like it would only take a few years.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Obviously, we managed to _not_ import them during eras where travel and trade between continents was far rarer.