4 ms·

>Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. There are over 250,000 children unde

>Then there are others who are in general opposed to this sort of interference in an animal population on ethical grounds. There are over 250,000 children under the age of 5 that die every year from malaria. In my ethical system, there is very little that can possibly justify trying to prevent something that will save the lives of 250,000 children a year. Anyone who actively tries to delay wiping out malaria causing mosquitoes is classified with climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers.

sszz 7y ago
There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Which ecosystem are human-biting mosquitoes a primary food source in?
  - wolco 7y ago
    The unknown ecosystem changes are concerning. A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      In most places, honeybees are introduced livestock, not a 'natural' part of the ecosystem.
  - stubish 7y ago
    Its not even human-biting... it is the handful of species capable of transmitting certain diseases and parasites, out of thousands of other mosquito species waiting to fill the empty ecological niches.
- blisterpeanuts 7y ago
  Do you have any links to the research about evolving to resist the gene drive effect? There are bio-ethicists arguing that it's wrong to eradicate an entire species. There are also biologists expressing concern about damaging the food chain. Regarding the former concern, it's only a tiny segment of our world that actually cares whether mosquitoes exist or not as part of some abstract idealism or wishing to preserve biodiversity. Most of us would be beyond happy to see this miserable creature eradicated. Regarding the food chain, there are some 5,000 species of mosquitoes, of which only about 100 feed on mammalian blood. Out of those 100, nine species carry disease such as malaria and zika. If we only targeted those 9, we'd have a huge win while scarcely affecting the pollination and prey species role of the rest of the family of mosquitoes. If we targeted the 100, we'd greatly increase the quality of life for not only 7 billion humans but also for tens of millions of mammals made miserable by blood sucking swarms. The great herds of reindeer of northern Canada, for example, deliberately run in single file, to reduce exposure to mosquitoes that swarm around them in the spring. Mosquitoes are a serious parasite up there; one herd animal can lose a pint or more of blood in a single day.
NegativeK 7y ago
Long-term, irreversible damages to entire species and ecosystems when perhaps a non-destructive solution is close? I don't feel like reductive arguments are useful for incredibly complex systems.
- _Microft 7y ago
  Indeed. There is a vaccine being tested right now [0] and still a lot of potential for better coverage with insecticide treated bed nets [1][2] (which are pretty effective) and the number of Malaria cases is actually steadily decreasing [3]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTS,S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTS,S [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide-treated_nets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide-treat... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/malaria#bed-nets https://ourworldindata.org/malaria#bed-nets [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/malaria-deaths-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/malaria-deaths-by-age
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Nobody is exactly crying for the guineaworm, and by interrupting its life cycle it may end up being eradicated.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Letting 1000+ people a day die is a non-destructive solution?
  - wolco 7y ago
    You could be killing 100,000 people a day if things go differently than you expect. Caution is in order.
    - csunbird 7y ago
      I am not sure why this is downvoted, this is a legit point. If we eradicate mosquitos and they evolve to survive while creating another problem other than malaria, you literally can end up killing 100000 people every day instead of 1000.
wolco 7y ago
Things that appear black/white seldom are. Do you believe in evolution? The children who live are more likely to have anti-malaria related genes and so will there kids. Would you save 250,000 children today just to condemned millions in the future as populations increase and more children as exposed and side effects are discovered. I would probably save 250,000 kids today but tomorrow when millions more are at risk I will wish I thought longterm.

sszz 7y ago

There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics.

maxerickson 7y ago
Which ecosystem are human-biting mosquitoes a primary food source in?
- wolco 7y ago
  The unknown ecosystem changes are concerning. A few years ago someone might say kill all bees kids are dying. We know better now.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    In most places, honeybees are introduced livestock, not a 'natural' part of the ecosystem.
- stubish 7y ago
  Its not even human-biting... it is the handful of species capable of transmitting certain diseases and parasites, out of thousands of other mosquito species waiting to fill the empty ecological niches.
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
Do you have any links to the research about evolving to resist the gene drive effect? There are bio-ethicists arguing that it's wrong to eradicate an entire species. There are also biologists expressing concern about damaging the food chain. Regarding the former concern, it's only a tiny segment of our world that actually cares whether mosquitoes exist or not as part of some abstract idealism or wishing to preserve biodiversity. Most of us would be beyond happy to see this miserable creature eradicated. Regarding the food chain, there are some 5,000 species of mosquitoes, of which only about 100 feed on mammalian blood. Out of those 100, nine species carry disease such as malaria and zika. If we only targeted those 9, we'd have a huge win while scarcely affecting the pollination and prey species role of the rest of the family of mosquitoes. If we targeted the 100, we'd greatly increase the quality of life for not only 7 billion humans but also for tens of millions of mammals made miserable by blood sucking swarms. The great herds of reindeer of northern Canada, for example, deliberately run in single file, to reduce exposure to mosquitoes that swarm around them in the spring. Mosquitoes are a serious parasite up there; one herd animal can lose a pint or more of blood in a single day.

NegativeK 7y ago

Long-term, irreversible damages to entire species and ecosystems when perhaps a non-destructive solution is close? I don't feel like reductive arguments are useful for incredibly complex systems.

_Microft 7y ago
Indeed. There is a vaccine being tested right now [0] and still a lot of potential for better coverage with insecticide treated bed nets [1][2] (which are pretty effective) and the number of Malaria cases is actually steadily decreasing [3]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTS,S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTS,S [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide-treated_nets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide-treat... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/malaria#bed-nets https://ourworldindata.org/malaria#bed-nets [3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/malaria-deaths-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/malaria-deaths-by-age
roywiggins 7y ago
Nobody is exactly crying for the guineaworm, and by interrupting its life cycle it may end up being eradicated.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Letting 1000+ people a day die is a non-destructive solution?
- wolco 7y ago
  You could be killing 100,000 people a day if things go differently than you expect. Caution is in order.
  - csunbird 7y ago
    I am not sure why this is downvoted, this is a legit point. If we eradicate mosquitos and they evolve to survive while creating another problem other than malaria, you literally can end up killing 100000 people every day instead of 1000.

wolco 7y ago

Things that appear black/white seldom are. Do you believe in evolution? The children who live are more likely to have anti-malaria related genes and so will there kids. Would you save 250,000 children today just to condemned millions in the future as populations increase and more children as exposed and side effects are discovered. I would probably save 250,000 kids today but tomorrow when millions more are at risk I will wish I thought longterm.