7 ms·

ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good ide

ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea

Filligree 8y ago
One particular species of mosquito, even. The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.
nkozyra 8y ago
If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it. But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.
- Haga 8y ago
  Can't we at least have backup plan to reintroduce?
  - sampo 8y ago
    Reintroduce malaria?
    - Haga 8y ago
      Moscitos, but now that I think about it.. If a whole population shows massive allergic reactions because the imuno system fights on after the threat is gone..
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. There's nothing to be lost in doing a trial in an isolated area. The world is vast, we don't need to eradicate mosquitoes at the same time everywhere...
  - azthecx 8y ago
    Life find a way, it doesn't really matter how isolated the area is. Once its out there, especially if its a gene that's very likely to be passed down the chances of it spreading are ridiculously high. I imagine even more as we are talking about insects which reproduce very quickly and are generally hardy.
- krageon 8y ago
  > But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
  - nkozyra 8y ago
    Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.
    - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
      Wiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!
      - TheHypnotist 8y ago
        The discussion isn't about wiping out a disease, it's about wiping out a species to wipe out a disease. Smallpox was eliminated in large part due to vaccination, not wiping an animal or insect from the face of the planet. Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
        sampo 8y ago
        Smallpox was a species, too. If we allow viruses to be species.
        TheHypnotist 8y ago
        Fair - and you are probably right. But I'd rather not get into semantics. You know what I meant.
        krageon 8y ago
        If everyone knew what you meant we wouldn't be having the discussion that we are definitely having.
chesterakos 8y ago
Why ITT since no one but you has commented yet.
marcosdumay 8y ago
A single species of mosquito, that is domestic and invasive. And also carries a large variety of diseases, not just malaria.
easshvsh 8y ago
I don't live in a country ravaged by malaria and I want to get rid of mosquitoes.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Same here. My bats can live off the moths. I currently have to use several measures to reduce mosquitoes in my area and it is costly and time consuming.
wuschel 8y ago
Classical ad hominem argument. Attack the people who make the immoral choice of thinking about the fact instead of blindly going forward and doing it, regardless of the cost. Perhaps it is worth to consider carefully before eradicating a species by any means? And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild. <irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>
- petters 8y ago
  If importing rabbits to Australia would have saved 500,000 lives annually, it would have been one of the best health-related things to happen to humanity. (The eradication of this particular mosquito species is likely harmless, but that does not matter. We should do it even if it isn't)
  - wuschel 8y ago
    Sorry, there are two separate questions here: A) the use of a technology - a gene drive - we have no full control of in the wild B) the act of eradication of a species to help to lower the loss of human life in Malaria affected regions. Your statement regarding the Australian ecosystem engineering is purely hypothetic. The import of alien lifeforms always had a detrimental effect on ecosystems, and often, as a second order effect, on humans as well. It scares me how a lot of people think that it is not worth thinking and evaluating the use of a technology. Perhaps it is because they have no experience and knowledge in this particular domain of science?
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      Or perhaps they have thought and evaluated and made their judgement call.
petters 8y ago
Actually, the previous time this was discussed on Hacker News, I saw a lot of posters with reasonable opinions.
Angostura 8y ago
Absolutely! Let's not let decisions about irreversibly altering an ecological web raise even vague feelings of doubt.
fiblye 8y ago
In a world where total insect population collapse is a very real possibility, there exist people who think calling out people who want to not exterminate a cornerstone insect species is a good idea. Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  TBF to humanity, we're also trying to develop effective malaria treatments, but AIUI: - there are several parasites that fall into that umbrella - none of them give you permanent immunity or even permanent resistance to reinfection, so we can't crib from those metaphorical notes to find a good vaccine - the parasites are developing drug resistance/immunity So while I agree we should be extremely careful about even considering wiping out a species on purpose, it's not for lack of exploring other options that we're at this point.
- astazangasta 8y ago
  If you're referring to this[1] article that I love to hate, it is not a study, it is a news item by some Nature journalist who whimsically interviews some folks. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
jmh530 8y ago
Malaria and other diseases are one of the main reasons Europeans kept their African ambitions relatively contained. What is the geopolitical implication of eliminating malaria?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  It has long been gone since Quinine essentially already let alone successors. Population spike maybe but also potential to stabilize more as persistent dangers cause humans to reproduce more. It would encourage more investment in children as well. No worries about "if my child dies all I spent on education would be lost and unrecoverable while say a jeep or plow would have something in the worst case".
vinniejames 8y ago
The impact of extermination could be far greater reaching https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/... We ought to think twice before expediting this
ataturk 8y ago
Sure, because species collapse and your ultimate demise are a better outcome?
slackfan 8y ago
Because we haven't fucked the environment enough.
vacant0 8y ago
Plus we're already losing at least 200 species (of plant, insect and animal) every year. Might as well save half a million human lives while we're at it..

ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea

Filligree 8y ago

One particular species of mosquito, even. The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.

nkozyra 8y ago

If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it. But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.

Haga 8y ago
Can't we at least have backup plan to reintroduce?
- sampo 8y ago
  Reintroduce malaria?
  - Haga 8y ago
    Moscitos, but now that I think about it.. If a whole population shows massive allergic reactions because the imuno system fights on after the threat is gone..
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 8y ago
> There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. There's nothing to be lost in doing a trial in an isolated area. The world is vast, we don't need to eradicate mosquitoes at the same time everywhere...
- azthecx 8y ago
  Life find a way, it doesn't really matter how isolated the area is. Once its out there, especially if its a gene that's very likely to be passed down the chances of it spreading are ridiculously high. I imagine even more as we are talking about insects which reproduce very quickly and are generally hardy.
krageon 8y ago
> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.
  - LeifCarrotson 8y ago
    Wiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!
    - TheHypnotist 8y ago
      The discussion isn't about wiping out a disease, it's about wiping out a species to wipe out a disease. Smallpox was eliminated in large part due to vaccination, not wiping an animal or insect from the face of the planet. Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
      - sampo 8y ago
        Smallpox was a species, too. If we allow viruses to be species.
        TheHypnotist 8y ago
        Fair - and you are probably right. But I'd rather not get into semantics. You know what I meant.
        krageon 8y ago
        If everyone knew what you meant we wouldn't be having the discussion that we are definitely having.

chesterakos 8y ago

Why ITT since no one but you has commented yet.

marcosdumay 8y ago

A single species of mosquito, that is domestic and invasive. And also carries a large variety of diseases, not just malaria.

easshvsh 8y ago

I don't live in a country ravaged by malaria and I want to get rid of mosquitoes.

LinuxBender 8y ago
Same here. My bats can live off the moths. I currently have to use several measures to reduce mosquitoes in my area and it is costly and time consuming.

wuschel 8y ago

Classical ad hominem argument. Attack the people who make the immoral choice of thinking about the fact instead of blindly going forward and doing it, regardless of the cost. Perhaps it is worth to consider carefully before eradicating a species by any means? And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild. <irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>

petters 8y ago
If importing rabbits to Australia would have saved 500,000 lives annually, it would have been one of the best health-related things to happen to humanity. (The eradication of this particular mosquito species is likely harmless, but that does not matter. We should do it even if it isn't)
- wuschel 8y ago
  Sorry, there are two separate questions here: A) the use of a technology - a gene drive - we have no full control of in the wild B) the act of eradication of a species to help to lower the loss of human life in Malaria affected regions. Your statement regarding the Australian ecosystem engineering is purely hypothetic. The import of alien lifeforms always had a detrimental effect on ecosystems, and often, as a second order effect, on humans as well. It scares me how a lot of people think that it is not worth thinking and evaluating the use of a technology. Perhaps it is because they have no experience and knowledge in this particular domain of science?
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Or perhaps they have thought and evaluated and made their judgement call.

petters 8y ago

Actually, the previous time this was discussed on Hacker News, I saw a lot of posters with reasonable opinions.

Angostura 8y ago

Absolutely! Let's not let decisions about irreversibly altering an ecological web raise even vague feelings of doubt.

fiblye 8y ago

In a world where total insect population collapse is a very real possibility, there exist people who think calling out people who want to not exterminate a cornerstone insect species is a good idea. Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.

rincebrain 8y ago
TBF to humanity, we're also trying to develop effective malaria treatments, but AIUI: - there are several parasites that fall into that umbrella - none of them give you permanent immunity or even permanent resistance to reinfection, so we can't crib from those metaphorical notes to find a good vaccine - the parasites are developing drug resistance/immunity So while I agree we should be extremely careful about even considering wiping out a species on purpose, it's not for lack of exploring other options that we're at this point.
astazangasta 8y ago
If you're referring to this[1] article that I love to hate, it is not a study, it is a news item by some Nature journalist who whimsically interviews some folks. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

jmh530 8y ago

Malaria and other diseases are one of the main reasons Europeans kept their African ambitions relatively contained. What is the geopolitical implication of eliminating malaria?

Nasrudith 8y ago
It has long been gone since Quinine essentially already let alone successors. Population spike maybe but also potential to stabilize more as persistent dangers cause humans to reproduce more. It would encourage more investment in children as well. No worries about "if my child dies all I spent on education would be lost and unrecoverable while say a jeep or plow would have something in the worst case".

vinniejames 8y ago

The impact of extermination could be far greater reaching https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c611921e4b0f9e1b17f097d/... We ought to think twice before expediting this

ataturk 8y ago

Sure, because species collapse and your ultimate demise are a better outcome?

slackfan 8y ago

Because we haven't fucked the environment enough.

vacant0 8y ago

Plus we're already losing at least 200 species (of plant, insect and animal) every year. Might as well save half a million human lives while we're at it..