5 ms·

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 simil

by 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.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      There's already a "colony collapse disorder", and nobody does anything. But when it comes to the Third World, suddenly we have to do nothing because something might happen (nobody even has a mechanism. We're supposed to sacrifice millions for delusions). This is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are enough good people in the world to ignore the callous.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        The point you're ignoring in your haste to indict everyone you don't like - due to what I suspect to be your complete ignorance of, or at least disinterest in, the millions of dollars annually spent on research aimed at eradicating malaria worldwide by the very same "West" for which you cannot find enough opprobrium - is that we can't know what consequences will come of these kinds of broad, blunt methods. Nobody expected DDT to drive large birds of prey nearly to extinction. Nobody expected neonicotinoids to concentrate in ecosystems and have a very similar effect on the insects we depend on to pollinate our food crops. It's not about predicting that terrible things will happen. It's that we aren't able to make sure terrible things won't. Neonicotinoids already have us at non-negligible risk of worldwide famine through agricultural collapse as a result of consequences we were too stupid and too hubristic to predict. How many millions do you think that will kill if it happens? Because that's the kind of risk you're proposing - and, just as with that famine, it's a risk that will hit worst on the most vulnerable, least privileged people in the world. You know? The same ones in whose supposed defense you're making such a performative display of contempt?
        yyyk 6y ago
        I'm not indicting the entire West. I'm indicting certain people in the West that post silly almost conspiracy style stuff against obvious solutions to a deadly disease. There's an obvious balance here, and it's not on the 'we don't know how but something might happen' side. How about we all stop posting on HN? After all, posting might change magnetic fields which might change a butterfly's path which could cause a deadly hurricane? P.S. We knew even at the time DDT was poisonous to life, and that draining swamps kills ecosystems. What changed wasn't so much our knowledge, but the situation (the West had gotten rid of many deadly diseases by that time, mosquitoes had started to develop resistance).
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    The US stamped out malaria in the 1930's as a public works program. That was before DDT.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      Well, other western countries did use DDT heavily, e.g. Italy[0]. Besides, it's not like the means used in the 1930s didn't have a significant ecological effect... I'll note that the modern suggestions to eradicate Malaria are more nuanced and at least try to only affect the parasite/host. e.g. releasing sterile males, immunizing the mosquitoes against the parasite[1], ATSBs, a GM fungus to poison mosquitoes, making human blood deadly to the parasite[2], etc. IMHO (I'm far from an expert), the most promising seems to be releasing sterile males followed by some of the other approaches to deal the death blow to the parasite (though if the mosquito goes I won't be bothered). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 I wonder whether this can scale... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950
3pt14159 6y ago
Destroying every member of a specific species is ridiculous. In the next couple decades we'll solve the majority of the illnesses that these things cause and we can roll out the cures around the world without the permanent damage to these ecosystems. I also lived for a time as a child in Manitoba and my grandfather got live altering malaria, so I don't share any love for these insects but we're part of something bigger and just because the west drained entire swamps doesn't mean I support that or that it validates making a species extinct on purpose.
- yyyk 6y ago
  "In the next couple decades", oh, a couple million would die, until maybe we'll have something else (or not). You have no right to make that choice. The only reason people are even thinking about it, is because it doesn't affect the West. That's callousness masquerading as environmentalism. %$#@! the ecosystem* . People are more important. * Nevermind no one has even shown any way that anything aside from the target would be harmed. Or that we could reintroduce the species once the parasite is gone.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    > %$#@! the ecosystem* . People are more important. You do know humans need a functioning ecology in order to survive, right?
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      ...and you read the part about mosquitoes being invasive species, right? So removing them improves almost every ecosystem they're found in.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        You read the part about it being a specific couple of species, right? So unless somebody comes up with a brilliant plan that targets specifically those species, and only in the parts of the world where they're not native, and nothing else, we're still risking the same kind of consequences as with DDT, or neonicotinoids. The kind we can't predict in advance are going to fuck us over. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the optimism inherent in a perspective on the world that says there's necessarily a technological solution to everything, and more than that, one that modern-day humans are certainly smart enough to find. I just wish it didn't so lend itself to hubris.
ip26 6y ago
When Malaria hit the West, we drained entire swamps without a second thought And we're paying the price now with increased vulnerability to hurricanes. (Swamps absorb the storm)
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  How many people actually die from hurricanes versus how many were killed by malaria? I think that trade off was well worth the cost.
  - MertsA 6y ago
    Not to mention the proposed actions aren't drastically altering the landscape and draining swamps, it's stuff like introducing genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild that cause the species to become infertile and die off. Draining wetlands and destroying forests is of course many times more impactful then removing a single species.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
There is a lot of hidden racism and colonialism in a lot of environmentalism. Basically, the West developed and rid itself of a lot of disease and predators. But if developing countries try to do this, all sorts of “environmental” objections are raised. I have even heard people say that mosquito borne illnesses are good because they keep people in poor nations from expanding into “pristine” forests. Basically, if there were 100’s of thousands of children dying in the West from malaria, we would do anything to get rid of the problem(and we did). But when it is other people’s children dying, it becomes “think of the mosquitos.”
- dpbriggs 6y ago
  > racism and colonialism I don't disagree with you at all, I am just not sure how these concepts are related. Xenophobia? You're absolutely right that western nations developed by radically altering environments. There's a certain sort of hypocrisy with environmentalists lobbying developing nations. I remember an elementary school trip about DDT and how it affected local peregrine falcon populations.

by yyyk 6y ago

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.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    There's already a "colony collapse disorder", and nobody does anything. But when it comes to the Third World, suddenly we have to do nothing because something might happen (nobody even has a mechanism. We're supposed to sacrifice millions for delusions). This is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are enough good people in the world to ignore the callous.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      The point you're ignoring in your haste to indict everyone you don't like - due to what I suspect to be your complete ignorance of, or at least disinterest in, the millions of dollars annually spent on research aimed at eradicating malaria worldwide by the very same "West" for which you cannot find enough opprobrium - is that we can't know what consequences will come of these kinds of broad, blunt methods. Nobody expected DDT to drive large birds of prey nearly to extinction. Nobody expected neonicotinoids to concentrate in ecosystems and have a very similar effect on the insects we depend on to pollinate our food crops. It's not about predicting that terrible things will happen. It's that we aren't able to make sure terrible things won't. Neonicotinoids already have us at non-negligible risk of worldwide famine through agricultural collapse as a result of consequences we were too stupid and too hubristic to predict. How many millions do you think that will kill if it happens? Because that's the kind of risk you're proposing - and, just as with that famine, it's a risk that will hit worst on the most vulnerable, least privileged people in the world. You know? The same ones in whose supposed defense you're making such a performative display of contempt?
      - yyyk 6y ago
        I'm not indicting the entire West. I'm indicting certain people in the West that post silly almost conspiracy style stuff against obvious solutions to a deadly disease. There's an obvious balance here, and it's not on the 'we don't know how but something might happen' side. How about we all stop posting on HN? After all, posting might change magnetic fields which might change a butterfly's path which could cause a deadly hurricane? P.S. We knew even at the time DDT was poisonous to life, and that draining swamps kills ecosystems. What changed wasn't so much our knowledge, but the situation (the West had gotten rid of many deadly diseases by that time, mosquitoes had started to develop resistance).
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  The US stamped out malaria in the 1930's as a public works program. That was before DDT.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Well, other western countries did use DDT heavily, e.g. Italy[0]. Besides, it's not like the means used in the 1930s didn't have a significant ecological effect... I'll note that the modern suggestions to eradicate Malaria are more nuanced and at least try to only affect the parasite/host. e.g. releasing sterile males, immunizing the mosquitoes against the parasite[1], ATSBs, a GM fungus to poison mosquitoes, making human blood deadly to the parasite[2], etc. IMHO (I'm far from an expert), the most promising seems to be releasing sterile males followed by some of the other approaches to deal the death blow to the parasite (though if the mosquito goes I won't be bothered). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340992/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23067008 I wonder whether this can scale... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20937950

3pt14159 6y ago

Destroying every member of a specific species is ridiculous. In the next couple decades we'll solve the majority of the illnesses that these things cause and we can roll out the cures around the world without the permanent damage to these ecosystems. I also lived for a time as a child in Manitoba and my grandfather got live altering malaria, so I don't share any love for these insects but we're part of something bigger and just because the west drained entire swamps doesn't mean I support that or that it validates making a species extinct on purpose.

yyyk 6y ago
"In the next couple decades", oh, a couple million would die, until maybe we'll have something else (or not). You have no right to make that choice. The only reason people are even thinking about it, is because it doesn't affect the West. That's callousness masquerading as environmentalism. %$#@! the ecosystem* . People are more important. * Nevermind no one has even shown any way that anything aside from the target would be harmed. Or that we could reintroduce the species once the parasite is gone.
- throwanem 6y ago
  > %$#@! the ecosystem* . People are more important. You do know humans need a functioning ecology in order to survive, right?
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    ...and you read the part about mosquitoes being invasive species, right? So removing them improves almost every ecosystem they're found in.
    - throwanem 6y ago
      You read the part about it being a specific couple of species, right? So unless somebody comes up with a brilliant plan that targets specifically those species, and only in the parts of the world where they're not native, and nothing else, we're still risking the same kind of consequences as with DDT, or neonicotinoids. The kind we can't predict in advance are going to fuck us over. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the optimism inherent in a perspective on the world that says there's necessarily a technological solution to everything, and more than that, one that modern-day humans are certainly smart enough to find. I just wish it didn't so lend itself to hubris.

ip26 6y ago

When Malaria hit the West, we drained entire swamps without a second thought And we're paying the price now with increased vulnerability to hurricanes. (Swamps absorb the storm)

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
How many people actually die from hurricanes versus how many were killed by malaria? I think that trade off was well worth the cost.
- MertsA 6y ago
  Not to mention the proposed actions aren't drastically altering the landscape and draining swamps, it's stuff like introducing genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild that cause the species to become infertile and die off. Draining wetlands and destroying forests is of course many times more impactful then removing a single species.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

There is a lot of hidden racism and colonialism in a lot of environmentalism. Basically, the West developed and rid itself of a lot of disease and predators. But if developing countries try to do this, all sorts of “environmental” objections are raised. I have even heard people say that mosquito borne illnesses are good because they keep people in poor nations from expanding into “pristine” forests. Basically, if there were 100’s of thousands of children dying in the West from malaria, we would do anything to get rid of the problem(and we did). But when it is other people’s children dying, it becomes “think of the mosquitos.”

dpbriggs 6y ago
> racism and colonialism I don't disagree with you at all, I am just not sure how these concepts are related. Xenophobia? You're absolutely right that western nations developed by radically altering environments. There's a certain sort of hypocrisy with environmentalists lobbying developing nations. I remember an elementary school trip about DDT and how it affected local peregrine falcon populations.