5 ms·

I wonder how much ecological damage is done by humans trying to protect their communities from disease borne mosquitos. I grew up with parents that urged me to

I wonder how much ecological damage is done by humans trying to protect their communities from disease borne mosquitos. I grew up with parents that urged me to prevent pools of standing water, but don’t lots of non-mosquito insects need standing water to breed?

joecool1029 7y ago
>I grew up with parents that urged me to prevent pools of standing water, but don’t lots of non-mosquito insects need standing water to breed? Sure, they can use the other pools of standing water not near humans. The reason it works to limit some species of mosquito (mostly aedes aegypti) is that they preferentially seek to bite humans and so live near them. Other bugs seek out plants and other bugs so they can live elsewhere.
- afarrell 7y ago
  There are more than 7 billion humans in the world and lots of agricultural land is required to feed the ones in cities. How much land area is not near humans?
  - perfmode 7y ago
    A lot. Humans are clustered.
  - SargeZT 7y ago
    Roughly half of the habitable land in the world is used for agriculture. Of the remaining half, only about 1% is developed in any sense.
- petre 7y ago
  Aedes Aegypti can breed in jars, tires, basically anything that holds water. No need for pools of standing water.
hbilar2 7y ago
quite - presumably there are other animals eating these insects. Then again, malaria kills lots and lots of people every year, and I suspect if I was in a malaria-prone country I might feel different about the balance of protecting humans vs potential ecological effects (even if in the long term this might cause big negative changes)
mattigames 7y ago
Keep in mind malaria also kills lots of animals besides humans.
- hajola 7y ago
  Those animals now not dying, might cause further ecological damage. Ecosystems tend to have a rather delicate balance and viruses play their part.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    Thousands of insects and animals species appeared and disappeared before humans existed, countless of times, so I wouldn't give that much weight to existent equilibriums; what we can do is being aware of the changes, e.g. if we detect a sudden increase in spiders population we can check what is killing the frogs and act accordingly
bubblewrap 7y ago
Fighting Malaria will presumably enable humans to settle in more areas than before, which will in itself do a lot of ecological damage. Edit: 2 downvotes. At this point, HN might as well switch off voting. It has become ridiculous. Here is something else for you to vote down: 2 + 2 = 4 Take that, suckers!
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Mere habitable area is already not the main constraint by far. Farmland isn't even as increased yield has lead to a decrease and market breaking surpluses for almost a century with lesser yield boosts. If habitable land was the constraint we would see ruralization - instead we see urbanization even when policies favor the suburban.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Well then you could solve Malaria by moving away from infested places, I suppose. Not yet convinced that land use is actually shrinking, but will google. And what about the rain forests? Why burn them down, if there is enough land already?
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Land use seems to have doubled in the last few decades, at least in West Africa https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-and-land-cover-trends-west-africa https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-and-lan... Didn't find a perfect source. But it doesn't seem to support the thesis that less land is required by humans. Are you saying farmers would work their fields covered in Mosquito nets, while most people live in Malaria free cities?
bayesian_horse 7y ago
Those "pools" are already man-made ecological systems. Not much to upset there. And you really don't want to live in a swamp, so any swamps that occupy desirable real estate are pretty much f*ed anyway. I know that certain species of Killifish in Africa can survive and reproduce in pools left behind by foot-prints. So, yes, quite interesting micro-ecosystems can exist.
petre 7y ago
You can populate pools of standing water with fish that eat mosquito larvae like Gambusia affinis, Phoxinus phoxinus etc. https://pondinformer.com/pond-fish-that-eat-mosquito-larvae/ https://pondinformer.com/pond-fish-that-eat-mosquito-larvae/
- afarrell 7y ago
  In practice, I don’t have the time. Someone with easy access to the supply chain for that fish-stocking might though. How many mosquito control agencies is that?
afarrell 7y ago
I realize I could have made my point more explicit: I suspect that we should do this so that we can remove the incentives for humans to spread pesticides and do other habitat-damaging things.

joecool1029 7y ago

>I grew up with parents that urged me to prevent pools of standing water, but don’t lots of non-mosquito insects need standing water to breed? Sure, they can use the other pools of standing water not near humans. The reason it works to limit some species of mosquito (mostly aedes aegypti) is that they preferentially seek to bite humans and so live near them. Other bugs seek out plants and other bugs so they can live elsewhere.

afarrell 7y ago
There are more than 7 billion humans in the world and lots of agricultural land is required to feed the ones in cities. How much land area is not near humans?
- perfmode 7y ago
  A lot. Humans are clustered.
- SargeZT 7y ago
  Roughly half of the habitable land in the world is used for agriculture. Of the remaining half, only about 1% is developed in any sense.
petre 7y ago
Aedes Aegypti can breed in jars, tires, basically anything that holds water. No need for pools of standing water.

hbilar2 7y ago

quite - presumably there are other animals eating these insects. Then again, malaria kills lots and lots of people every year, and I suspect if I was in a malaria-prone country I might feel different about the balance of protecting humans vs potential ecological effects (even if in the long term this might cause big negative changes)

mattigames 7y ago

Keep in mind malaria also kills lots of animals besides humans.

hajola 7y ago
Those animals now not dying, might cause further ecological damage. Ecosystems tend to have a rather delicate balance and viruses play their part.
- mattigames 7y ago
  Thousands of insects and animals species appeared and disappeared before humans existed, countless of times, so I wouldn't give that much weight to existent equilibriums; what we can do is being aware of the changes, e.g. if we detect a sudden increase in spiders population we can check what is killing the frogs and act accordingly

bubblewrap 7y ago

Fighting Malaria will presumably enable humans to settle in more areas than before, which will in itself do a lot of ecological damage. Edit: 2 downvotes. At this point, HN might as well switch off voting. It has become ridiculous. Here is something else for you to vote down: 2 + 2 = 4 Take that, suckers!

Nasrudith 7y ago
Mere habitable area is already not the main constraint by far. Farmland isn't even as increased yield has lead to a decrease and market breaking surpluses for almost a century with lesser yield boosts. If habitable land was the constraint we would see ruralization - instead we see urbanization even when policies favor the suburban.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Well then you could solve Malaria by moving away from infested places, I suppose. Not yet convinced that land use is actually shrinking, but will google. And what about the rain forests? Why burn them down, if there is enough land already?
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Land use seems to have doubled in the last few decades, at least in West Africa https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-and-land-cover-trends-west-africa https://eros.usgs.gov/westafrica/land-cover/land-use-and-lan... Didn't find a perfect source. But it doesn't seem to support the thesis that less land is required by humans. Are you saying farmers would work their fields covered in Mosquito nets, while most people live in Malaria free cities?

bayesian_horse 7y ago

Those "pools" are already man-made ecological systems. Not much to upset there. And you really don't want to live in a swamp, so any swamps that occupy desirable real estate are pretty much f*ed anyway. I know that certain species of Killifish in Africa can survive and reproduce in pools left behind by foot-prints. So, yes, quite interesting micro-ecosystems can exist.

petre 7y ago

You can populate pools of standing water with fish that eat mosquito larvae like Gambusia affinis, Phoxinus phoxinus etc. https://pondinformer.com/pond-fish-that-eat-mosquito-larvae/ https://pondinformer.com/pond-fish-that-eat-mosquito-larvae/

afarrell 7y ago
In practice, I don’t have the time. Someone with easy access to the supply chain for that fish-stocking might though. How many mosquito control agencies is that?

afarrell 7y ago

I realize I could have made my point more explicit: I suspect that we should do this so that we can remove the incentives for humans to spread pesticides and do other habitat-damaging things.