32 ms·

I grew up in Manitoba so have a very healthy hatred of mosquitoes - 50 of them once followed me into a car during the <1s window of me opening & closing the doo

I grew up in Manitoba so have a very healthy hatred of mosquitoes - 50 of them once followed me into a car during the <1s window of me opening & closing the door (I know because I killed them all before driving) - but anyone leaning toward the idea we should exterminate mosquitoes is incredibly reckless. Ecological systems don't shift slowly, they collapse all at once. Their continued existence is predicated on feedback loops of mind-boggling complexity. To put it another way: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1120044775024013312 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1120044775024013312

dmix 6y ago
> anyone leaning toward the idea we should exterminate mosquitoes Is this actually a thing?
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Of course it is, very popular among the Thought Leader circuit: https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-melinda-gates-funding-scientists-to-engineer-malaria-killing-mosquito https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-melinda-gates-funding-scie...
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    I love this, "Though Leader circuit", been looking for this term for a while!
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Malaria and dengue are only carried by certain mosquito species. Suggestions to eliminate mosquitos through gene therapy almost always concern those specific species, not the relatively harmless (yet very annoying) mosquitos of the global north.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Isn’t that plan only to eliminate the specific species responsible for disease carrying? There are many mosquitos, the mosquito they’re targeting is just one.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Intentions don't always match outcomes when it comes to fiddling with these systems.
      - graeme 6y ago
        That's true. But, by what plausible mechanism could this project switch from killing one species of mosquito to killing all of them? There's no way it would happen via natural selection. The mosquito is engineered to die. The project has to keep releasing new genetically engineered mosquitos to mate with females. I totally get the idea that removing all mosquitos would likely lead to spiralling ecosystem collapse, and it's possible that even killing this one species could do so. But, are you arguing that trying to kill this one species could kill all mosquito species? I just don't see how that's possible with this mechanism.
        jacobr1 6y ago
        One idea: killing one specious could cause some kind of "trophic cascade" style impact. Such as, imagine that current preditor (B) of the targeted species (A) adapts to target an alternate species (C) and is a more efficient predator wiping them out. But then usual preditor of (C) species (D) has now lost is food source and dies off, as do species that depend upon it, maybe in indirect ways, like its excrement is needed to fertilize certain plant species and then other animals dependant upon that plant are impacted and so on and so on. Note: I think these types of scenarios are unlikely and am in favor of the eradication programs (though I do think we should have smaller-scale trials not just to validate efficacy but also to understand unintended impacts). But we have observed these types of impacts. It isn't just a crazy idea. But nature also seems to me to quite adaptable.
        graeme 6y ago
        I think that’s plausible, but you seem to have missed the point. OP asked whether anyone was considering killing all mosquitos? Myself and others replied no, just this one species. It’s indeed possible that there would be local ill effects, possibly even on other mosquitos. But I don’t see how it would affect mosquitos outside Aedes Aegypti’s habitat. Also, the species is invasive outside of Africa. This increases the odds it could be safely eliminated in those areas. I still agree there’s the possibility of great impacts. But I don’t think it could affect “all mosquitos”.
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  Yes, I am in favor of exterminating every last mosquito. I’d rather deal with any results than the mosquitos themselves. Also I had a long conversation with a specialist in a company working on this and they convinced me that it wouldn’t actually be a big problem like some say.
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    > it wouldn’t actually be a big problem like some say Well this is the law of unintended consequences in action. Many people don't think it will have any negative effect but we don't know. Nature is extraordinarily complex and disrupting it in such a huge way almost always carries knock-on impact.
    - smabie 6y ago
      Saying we are too stupid to ever know anything is a pretty anti-scientific attitude. Maybe global warming is gonna make the world so much better, after all, we don't really know anything. It's impossible to actually live your life if you just throw your hands up and say "we don't know". What we do know is that mosquitos have killed more humans than probably anything else ever. Shouldn't that be impetus enough to actually do something about it? Of course, the problem is made worse by the fact that the people who are advocating against doing anything aren't the people that mosquitos are killing. If you knew a lot of people who had died from Malaria, you might be singing a different tune.
      - nkozyra 6y ago
        > Saying we are too stupid to ever know anything is a pretty anti-scientific attitude. It's also a straw man. I didn't say we're "too stupid" to "ever know anything." So let's at least engage in good faith. Should we "do something?" Sure. And we have, for centuries. Did you miss anti malarial drugs, physical detriments and mitigations? "Advocating against doing anything" is another gross straw man argument.
    - pnako 6y ago
      Yes, and? It's not going to change the orbits of planets. Ecosystems will have to adapt to mosquitoes disappearing, like they did when countless other species disappeared.
- yyyk 6y ago
  I am very much in favour. Well, not all mosquitoes, just those carrying infectious diseases. Ok, maybe not even wiping. We can keep some specimen in labs/zoos, and once the parasites/diseases has been wiped out by killing the hosts, we can release them again. Humanity wipes out species by the dozens each year for no reason and people shrug, but for some reason many people don't want to target the few subspecies that are actually extremely harmful to humans.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
petters 6y ago
The ecological systems would likely be fine; the mosquitoes responsible for diseases are a minority. But that is beside the point and does not matter. What matters are 700,000 human lives annually. It's tragic really. If we had these diseases in Europe or North America, we would have already done this.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Maybe you didn't click the link, so I guess I'll ask you: how many humans would die if we did exterminate the mosquitoes? More or less than 700,000? Do you know? You have no way of knowing how ecological systems would react.
  - petters 6y ago
    I think disease-carrying species live together with non-disease-carrying species, which, if correct, would mean an ecological impact of effectively zero. We humans have a long, long "tradition" of exterminating species and we know it will not affect things that really matter to us, like agriculture and water. The number of human deaths will be effectively zero.
  - lucisferre 6y ago
    Several of the comments responding to him do address this and at least some of the people commenting do appear to know, or at least know more than Nassim Taleb appears to. Besides, his statement isn't an argument, and present no facts or information. > Imbecilic remark. Do you know how many humans would die if we eliminated mosquitos? Any idea? petters also appears to be correct on what would happen if we had these issues in North America. Your own province kills mosquitos en masse and those ones aren't even carrying deadly disease they are just a nuisance. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deltamethrin-first-use-winnipeg-1.5347539 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deltamethrin-first-u...
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      Taleb's position in general is one of extreme conservatism when meddling with ecological systems (for example he is also against GMOs). The basis for this conservatism is his general concern with risk in a nonlinear world. He does indeed put forth an argument, which is: can you predict the effects of this? No, you cannot, and possible effects include ecological collapse. Re: Manitoba, spraying to reduce mosquito populations in urban areas is a whole different ball game from extermination.
wvenable 6y ago
Not all mosquito species feed on humans. If we eliminate just those, there will still be thousands of other mosquito species in the environment.
yyyk 6y ago
The issue is very well studied - Mosquitoes are an invading species in most areas; Only a few subspecies are harmful to humans, and they'll be replaced by similar mosquitoes that aren't. Besides, there's a very wide gap between what the West is and was willing to do when an infectious disease happens. When Malaria hit the West, we drained entire swamps (and their ecosystems) without a second though. When corona hits, we justifiably lockdown entire countries. When Malaria hits poor people, it's think about the Mosquitoes. I can't help but think there's a very ugly thing behind this double-standard.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Nature doesn't care about how something looks politically. Those decisions were bad and aren't vindicated because nothing went wrong (there are other cases where things went very very wrong, as another commenter mentions with DDT). In a nonlinear world you can never know whether you were right or just lucky.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Make no mistake, the West would do DDT all over again if that was the price for getting rid of Malaria. But a very targeted intervention is off limits due to 'well, we don't know, something might go wrong'. Nature doesn't care if humans all die. Nature doesn't 'care' at all. Humanity does. And this looks very ugly and very hypocritical.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      "The West" is doing DDT all over again. This time it's neonicotinoids, and just like with DDT, they're being pushed by ag conglomerates as a way to increase profits, with a side of "cigarettes give you healthy skin!" style propaganda to make them look innocent. Last time, we "merely" almost wiped out a whole class of apex predators and caused a collection of trophic cascades. This time, with a menu of unintended consequences only the most obvious of which is the "colony collapse disorder" that's been imperiling pollinators worldwide, we might just end up managing to break modern agriculture entirely and cause famines worldwide, too. So, yeah, "targeted interventions" merit extreme skepticism, because we as a species suck at them. If you want to look at that through a lens of anti-Westernism, you're welcome.
condesising 6y ago
The mosquitoes provide any benefit? Reading this article is scary, I figured Science would just go for Total eradication.
mantap 6y ago
Citation needed. Mosquito extermination and habit destruction has been going on in USA for 60 years at least. It is THE primary method of malaria and dengue fever prevention around the world and is supported by every public health body on earth.
gjs278 6y ago
if we kill the mosquitoes we’ll be fine.

dmix 6y ago

> anyone leaning toward the idea we should exterminate mosquitoes Is this actually a thing?

ahelwer 6y ago
Of course it is, very popular among the Thought Leader circuit: https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-melinda-gates-funding-scientists-to-engineer-malaria-killing-mosquito https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-melinda-gates-funding-scie...
- bamboozled 6y ago
  I love this, "Though Leader circuit", been looking for this term for a while!
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Malaria and dengue are only carried by certain mosquito species. Suggestions to eliminate mosquitos through gene therapy almost always concern those specific species, not the relatively harmless (yet very annoying) mosquitos of the global north.
- graeme 6y ago
  Isn’t that plan only to eliminate the specific species responsible for disease carrying? There are many mosquitos, the mosquito they’re targeting is just one.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Intentions don't always match outcomes when it comes to fiddling with these systems.
    - graeme 6y ago
      That's true. But, by what plausible mechanism could this project switch from killing one species of mosquito to killing all of them? There's no way it would happen via natural selection. The mosquito is engineered to die. The project has to keep releasing new genetically engineered mosquitos to mate with females. I totally get the idea that removing all mosquitos would likely lead to spiralling ecosystem collapse, and it's possible that even killing this one species could do so. But, are you arguing that trying to kill this one species could kill all mosquito species? I just don't see how that's possible with this mechanism.
      - jacobr1 6y ago
        One idea: killing one specious could cause some kind of "trophic cascade" style impact. Such as, imagine that current preditor (B) of the targeted species (A) adapts to target an alternate species (C) and is a more efficient predator wiping them out. But then usual preditor of (C) species (D) has now lost is food source and dies off, as do species that depend upon it, maybe in indirect ways, like its excrement is needed to fertilize certain plant species and then other animals dependant upon that plant are impacted and so on and so on. Note: I think these types of scenarios are unlikely and am in favor of the eradication programs (though I do think we should have smaller-scale trials not just to validate efficacy but also to understand unintended impacts). But we have observed these types of impacts. It isn't just a crazy idea. But nature also seems to me to quite adaptable.
        graeme 6y ago
        I think that’s plausible, but you seem to have missed the point. OP asked whether anyone was considering killing all mosquitos? Myself and others replied no, just this one species. It’s indeed possible that there would be local ill effects, possibly even on other mosquitos. But I don’t see how it would affect mosquitos outside Aedes Aegypti’s habitat. Also, the species is invasive outside of Africa. This increases the odds it could be safely eliminated in those areas. I still agree there’s the possibility of great impacts. But I don’t think it could affect “all mosquitos”.
epicureanideal 6y ago
Yes, I am in favor of exterminating every last mosquito. I’d rather deal with any results than the mosquitos themselves. Also I had a long conversation with a specialist in a company working on this and they convinced me that it wouldn’t actually be a big problem like some say.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  > it wouldn’t actually be a big problem like some say Well this is the law of unintended consequences in action. Many people don't think it will have any negative effect but we don't know. Nature is extraordinarily complex and disrupting it in such a huge way almost always carries knock-on impact.
  - smabie 6y ago
    Saying we are too stupid to ever know anything is a pretty anti-scientific attitude. Maybe global warming is gonna make the world so much better, after all, we don't really know anything. It's impossible to actually live your life if you just throw your hands up and say "we don't know". What we do know is that mosquitos have killed more humans than probably anything else ever. Shouldn't that be impetus enough to actually do something about it? Of course, the problem is made worse by the fact that the people who are advocating against doing anything aren't the people that mosquitos are killing. If you knew a lot of people who had died from Malaria, you might be singing a different tune.
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      > Saying we are too stupid to ever know anything is a pretty anti-scientific attitude. It's also a straw man. I didn't say we're "too stupid" to "ever know anything." So let's at least engage in good faith. Should we "do something?" Sure. And we have, for centuries. Did you miss anti malarial drugs, physical detriments and mitigations? "Advocating against doing anything" is another gross straw man argument.
  - pnako 6y ago
    Yes, and? It's not going to change the orbits of planets. Ecosystems will have to adapt to mosquitoes disappearing, like they did when countless other species disappeared.
yyyk 6y ago
I am very much in favour. Well, not all mosquitoes, just those carrying infectious diseases. Ok, maybe not even wiping. We can keep some specimen in labs/zoos, and once the parasites/diseases has been wiped out by killing the hosts, we can release them again. Humanity wipes out species by the dozens each year for no reason and people shrug, but for some reason many people don't want to target the few subspecies that are actually extremely harmful to humans.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

petters 6y ago

The ecological systems would likely be fine; the mosquitoes responsible for diseases are a minority. But that is beside the point and does not matter. What matters are 700,000 human lives annually. It's tragic really. If we had these diseases in Europe or North America, we would have already done this.

ahelwer 6y ago
Maybe you didn't click the link, so I guess I'll ask you: how many humans would die if we did exterminate the mosquitoes? More or less than 700,000? Do you know? You have no way of knowing how ecological systems would react.
- petters 6y ago
  I think disease-carrying species live together with non-disease-carrying species, which, if correct, would mean an ecological impact of effectively zero. We humans have a long, long "tradition" of exterminating species and we know it will not affect things that really matter to us, like agriculture and water. The number of human deaths will be effectively zero.
- lucisferre 6y ago
  Several of the comments responding to him do address this and at least some of the people commenting do appear to know, or at least know more than Nassim Taleb appears to. Besides, his statement isn't an argument, and present no facts or information. > Imbecilic remark. Do you know how many humans would die if we eliminated mosquitos? Any idea? petters also appears to be correct on what would happen if we had these issues in North America. Your own province kills mosquitos en masse and those ones aren't even carrying deadly disease they are just a nuisance. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deltamethrin-first-use-winnipeg-1.5347539 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deltamethrin-first-u...
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    Taleb's position in general is one of extreme conservatism when meddling with ecological systems (for example he is also against GMOs). The basis for this conservatism is his general concern with risk in a nonlinear world. He does indeed put forth an argument, which is: can you predict the effects of this? No, you cannot, and possible effects include ecological collapse. Re: Manitoba, spraying to reduce mosquito populations in urban areas is a whole different ball game from extermination.

wvenable 6y ago

Not all mosquito species feed on humans. If we eliminate just those, there will still be thousands of other mosquito species in the environment.

yyyk 6y ago

The issue is very well studied - Mosquitoes are an invading species in most areas; Only a few subspecies are harmful to humans, and they'll be replaced by similar mosquitoes that aren't. Besides, there's a very wide gap between what the West is and was willing to do when an infectious disease happens. When Malaria hit the West, we drained entire swamps (and their ecosystems) without a second though. When corona hits, we justifiably lockdown entire countries. When Malaria hits poor people, it's think about the Mosquitoes. I can't help but think there's a very ugly thing behind this double-standard.

ahelwer 6y ago
Nature doesn't care about how something looks politically. Those decisions were bad and aren't vindicated because nothing went wrong (there are other cases where things went very very wrong, as another commenter mentions with DDT). In a nonlinear world you can never know whether you were right or just lucky.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Make no mistake, the West would do DDT all over again if that was the price for getting rid of Malaria. But a very targeted intervention is off limits due to 'well, we don't know, something might go wrong'. Nature doesn't care if humans all die. Nature doesn't 'care' at all. Humanity does. And this looks very ugly and very hypocritical.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    "The West" is doing DDT all over again. This time it's neonicotinoids, and just like with DDT, they're being pushed by ag conglomerates as a way to increase profits, with a side of "cigarettes give you healthy skin!" style propaganda to make them look innocent. Last time, we "merely" almost wiped out a whole class of apex predators and caused a collection of trophic cascades. This time, with a menu of unintended consequences only the most obvious of which is the "colony collapse disorder" that's been imperiling pollinators worldwide, we might just end up managing to break modern agriculture entirely and cause famines worldwide, too. So, yeah, "targeted interventions" merit extreme skepticism, because we as a species suck at them. If you want to look at that through a lens of anti-Westernism, you're welcome.

condesising 6y ago

The mosquitoes provide any benefit? Reading this article is scary, I figured Science would just go for Total eradication.

mantap 6y ago

Citation needed. Mosquito extermination and habit destruction has been going on in USA for 60 years at least. It is THE primary method of malaria and dengue fever prevention around the world and is supported by every public health body on earth.

gjs278 6y ago

if we kill the mosquitoes we’ll be fine.