3 ms·

>Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably” more invasive? You don't have to wait for the evolution. There were already cases w

by mr__y 7y ago

>Eventually, but evolution is slow. Why would the replacement be “probably” more invasive? You don't have to wait for the evolution. There were already cases when a species from other country/continent was accidentally introduced to a new environment due to "parasite passengers" in shipping containers. While this problem exists independently of genetically engineered moths, since this already happened before[0], creating a void in an ecosystem might make this process easier. [0] the first thing that pops in my head would be chinese mitten crabs in Germany https://cutt.ly/1rTUHN3 https://cutt.ly/1rTUHN3

ben_w 7y ago
Hmm. I would argue that because what you describe is a problem that exists independently, that isn’t a convincing argument for not modifying these moths. I accept I could be wrong though. I do have the feeling that this is straying outside my confidence zone.
- mr__y 7y ago
  I was commenting on this from parent posts: >>another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. >Eventually, but evolution is slow. While the evolution is indeed slow, I was trying to point out that there are other ways to introduce new species, that are not slow. >problem that exists independently yes, of course, but... if new species in small amounts are introduced to an ecosystem there is relatively high probability that they might not survive in that ecosystem. Now if there was some void in that ecostystem, the chances of that new species could be higher since their competition was removed/reduced. This of course requires some kind of coincidence - when the species accidentally introduced to the ecosystem can take over the place of moths being reduced. Since there are so many variables I believe it is close to impossible to asses the probability of such coincidence. I assume that this probability is very close to "unlikely" but still non-zero.

by mr__y 7y ago

ben_w 7y ago

Hmm. I would argue that because what you describe is a problem that exists independently, that isn’t a convincing argument for not modifying these moths. I accept I could be wrong though. I do have the feeling that this is straying outside my confidence zone.

mr__y 7y ago
I was commenting on this from parent posts: >>another (probably more invasive) species will rise to take it's place. >Eventually, but evolution is slow. While the evolution is indeed slow, I was trying to point out that there are other ways to introduce new species, that are not slow. >problem that exists independently yes, of course, but... if new species in small amounts are introduced to an ecosystem there is relatively high probability that they might not survive in that ecosystem. Now if there was some void in that ecostystem, the chances of that new species could be higher since their competition was removed/reduced. This of course requires some kind of coincidence - when the species accidentally introduced to the ecosystem can take over the place of moths being reduced. Since there are so many variables I believe it is close to impossible to asses the probability of such coincidence. I assume that this probability is very close to "unlikely" but still non-zero.