12 ms·

We Crush, Poison, and Destroy Insects at Our Own Peril

meerita 6y ago
Just make mosquitoes disappear. The rest of the insects can be managed, but mosquitoes are the worst of them.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  Cockroaches too please.
  - sohkamyung 6y ago
    Eliminating 4000 over species of cockroaches because 30 are associated with humans and 5 are pests is extreme, I think [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach > Cockroaches (or roaches) are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About five species are well known as pests.
  - azernik 6y ago
    As scavengers, cockroaches actually fill a useful economic niche. Mosquitos are just pure shared-needle disease spreaders.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      Lots of animals (fish, amphibians, birds, spiders, other insects) depend on mosquitoes as a source of food. Also, lots of plants are pollinated by mosquitoes.
  - 0xbkt 6y ago
    I live in a Mediterranean city, and in summers (hell-hole hot and humid) they're my nightmare. The big ones! They swarm the entire city. I get along well with smaller ones lighter in color though. I freak out the moment I notice one on the wall to the bathroom. Poor me.
- enriquto 6y ago
  We can make all mammals disappear and mosquitos will follow.
  - bzb6 6y ago
    Start with yourself.
- MildlySerious 6y ago
  The diseases they transmit notwithstanding, I would take 10x the mosquitoes if it meant ticks, bot flies, intestinal worms, brain eating amoeba and any other parasitic creepy crawlies were gone for good.
  - choeger 6y ago
    Yeah, some of these parasites really wouldn't be missed at all.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    To be fair, ticks, intestinal worms, and amoebae are not insects.
    - naringas 6y ago
      I thought that ticks are insects? however the diseases they cause are caused by bacteria and other non-insects which they carry around, which I think is the point
      - samvher 6y ago
        Ticks are arachnids and have 8 legs.
      - glormph 6y ago
        Ticks have eight legs and are thus not insects, but more closely related (I think?) to spiders.
  - jfim 6y ago
    There is some research that shows that done of these parasites may have the beneficial action of preventing autoimmune disease by modulating the immune system response. See the layman version [0] or a more scholarly version [1]. [0] https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2018.00032 https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2018.00032 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/
- gchamonlive 6y ago
  I am no biologist, but my guess is that if mosquitoes were extinct, some spider species would too, birds would also be affected, and so on.
  - chr1 6y ago
    There are many species of mosquitos, only a few of them bite people, even fewer live in cities and less than a handful transmit disease. We could start by killing the latter group.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Or breed biteless versions of the biting mozzies? Are there any mosquitos that live entirely on blood?
      - 8fingerlouie 6y ago
        Only female mosquitos suck blood, and they only suck blood when developing eggs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Egg_development_and_blood_digestion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Egg_development_and_b...
  - zeristor 6y ago
    And bats
    - stjo 6y ago
      Yeah, they can go extinct too. That would have saved us a global pandemic or two.
      - klodolph 6y ago
        Why not wipe out pigs and birds, too? That will take care of some more pandemics. Hope you are not too attached to any of the following crops, which would die off without bats: cacao, peaches, bananas, guava, mango, dates, and figs.
- OneGuy123 6y ago
  We cannot do this in isolation because we never know if that would eg affect bird population or if we geneticaly modify mosquitos that can have unintendend consequences that no study can predict. Do not fool yourself that you can "make a study" for everything: you cannot. You can never predict what will happen if you mess with nature on a genetic level. This was already proven to be true when they released some GMO mosquitos which were not being able to reproduce. BUT WAIT! They were able to reproduce sooner or later again! How shocking! Who would have thought! And those scientists then said "this was not supposed to happen". These scientists got the problem completely wrong, up-side-down: they believed that they "studied" the problem enough. The believed that they "knew enough" that this "should not have happened". But they won't ever learn that complex system (which is pretty much everything in nature) cannot be "studied and come to a conclusion with a high degree of confidence". "High degree of confidence" and "complex system" are opposites that cannot appear in the same sentence.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I'd be interested to read a paper discussing what appears to be a previously unsuspected failure mode of sterile insect technique. Granted, I have to assume that that's what you're talking about under all the absurd hyperbole, because all the absurd hyperbole gets in the way. But if that is what you're trying to get at, do you have a cite?
    - OneGuy123 6y ago
      The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.
      - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
        Creating a caricature and insulting it is a fallacy, not an argument.
        6y ago
- gadders 6y ago
  It's only about 10 species of mosquito out of thousands that spread malaria. It would be better to wipe out the plasmodium that spreads it. This was a recent podcast on the subject, if you like your science more lighthearted: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcpf https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcpf
- bottled_poe 6y ago
  Interesting ethical dilemma. If we do ever encounter extraterrestrial life, I sure hope they are less brutal in their judgement of the species here on earth.
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    If humans start injecting them with diseases then they would be in the right to get rid of us.
    - jedimastert 6y ago
      I mean, we almost certainly will? What's the difference when every breath is teeming with a colony of completely foreign diseases?
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        Because life - at least hear on earth - is pretty much made up by all kinds of bacteria and virus. So aliens might wipe us out, because their system can't handle it. But parent spoke about the right to fight, when we would attack, like ticks do attack us, like other parsites.
      - curryst 6y ago
        You presume that their biological processes are similar to us, which isn't necessarily true. It almost seems unlikely to be true. If most of those diseases can't make the jump from a human to a fish or a bird that's from the same planet and even the same evolutionary line, it seems unlikely that we would be susceptible to each other's diseases. This isn't like when Europeans brought Small Pox to the New World; those were still humans.
        jedimastert 6y ago
        True, but every once in a blue moon you get a virus that's completely harmless to the host that by pure random luck can make that jump and...gestures broadly
- vincnetas 6y ago
  I was really hoping that this was sarcasm, but from replies i see that lots of people take it seriously. Wow, i'm shocked, hope we never will have such ability to eliminate a species on demand when someone got annoyed during camping, without even thinking about the consequences of such action and alternatives how desired outcome could be achieved.
  - baxtr 6y ago
    AFAIK, mosquitos are the animals that take the most human lives per annum. It is not only about "getting annoyed" during camping. EDIT, I found a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_h...
    - alfanick 6y ago
      Let's have humans evolve instead of killing things that were here before us.
      - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
        Natural history is full of examples of "lets kill things that were here before us". So your argument can't be a reference and a call to a natural state of being. What is it about then?
      - refurb 6y ago
        You’re against killing the plague? That’s silly.
        ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
        I'm trying to remember where I read it, but someone once penned an article, crying about the crime of exterminating smallpox. They were serious about it, too. I wouldn't worry. I'm sure that both Russia and the US have some saved up...just in case.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Are we really really sure there won't be any unintended consequences to removing mosquitoes?
  - jbob2000 6y ago
    Have you looked around you lately? What about the unintended consequences of... all of human technology and civilization? Please, get rid of the mosquitos! I don’t want to have to douse myself in chemicals just to go for a hike or enjoy a weekend of camping.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    Of course not, but when has that ever stopped anyone?
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Plenty of animals make mosquitoes (and their eggs) a big part of their diets (fish, birbs, spiders, and usually involuntarily, humans).
- b0rsuk 6y ago
  Mosquitos eat mostly flower nectar. Males never bite. Females still eat nectar but need blood to produce eggs. Mosquito larvae are very good for filtering water.
sylvain_kerkour 6y ago
Because the website seems down: https://web.archive.org/web/20210125095633/http://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destroy-insects-at-our-own-peril https://web.archive.org/web/20210125095633/http://nautil.us/...
- vulkoingim 6y ago
  I think the mobile version is down (the one it is linked to), this one works for me: https://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destroy-insects-at-our-own-peril https://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destro...
cupofcoffee 6y ago
Yes, we destroy the environment all the time. Yet nothing major gets done about it. The average person isn't the one that needs convincing, it's the higher ups and how to reach them? Joe Biden got the US back to the Paris agreement, I hope that changes something for the better.
- worldsayshi 6y ago
  > The average person isn't the one that needs convincing If the average person cared enough there would be political pressure on those higher ups. Looking at how people vote (not just thinking about US here) I'm not convinced people care all that much.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. The problem here is that most of this issues have no visible direct correlation to our actions as humans, so to convince the average person you have to teach them very, very well. And starting from the very beginning, when they are small children. And that's not quick. So, while this solution must be pursued for sure, at the same time we need quicker actions on those issues, and the quickest way is to deploy them at the management/politicians/law levels.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    It's not that people don't care, it's that they've been put into a position where they have to care about other things more. The greatest threat for the average person isn't climate change, it's going broke. When you're living paycheck to paycheck, dumping every penny you earn into rent, food and (in the US) student loans and basic healthcare, are you really going to vote for the people who want to raise your taxes, ban the cheap crap you buy and regulate their employers who will pass the expense down to you in order to keep their margins high? No, all of those things are immediate dangers to your ability to survive. Add to that the constant threats that terrorists/immigrants/communists... are "coming to destroy our freedoms/way of life" and people have so many more (both real and fake) threats looming over them that the distant and (to some) uncertain threat of climate change is basically at the bottom of their priority list.
idclip 6y ago
People keep mentioning what annoys them and how much they want it gone ... people here say its not the job of the average joe yet who is going to be affected? ... Its all our doing. We will bear the brunt, if not the responsibility. I think some of us will survive whats coming .. most, i fear, wont.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  As a person who hates to kill bugs (they're alive and absolutely required in nature), I have an agreement with them in my mind: - The outside is yours, you can do whatever you want there. - Inside the walls is my own territory. I want you in minimum numbers there. - If you're an harmless bug (most except cockroaches, centipedes and venomous animals), I'll transport you to nature with utmost care. Notes: - Balconies are outside. - I'll try my best to not to poison outside or kill you in high numbers unless you try to invade my home.
  - vincnetas 6y ago
    My wife had "Kill on sight" policy for spiders. Lots of screaming included. I have negotiated for them "safe escort to backyard" policy some time ago. Feel much better about them now.
    - hordeallergy 6y ago
      In a sense spiders are part of the problem - insect killers. I keep one in the kitchen window, and a little jumping one lives on the bedroom roof, migrates across to the windows a couple of times a day, but all others strictly belong outside.
      - ljf 6y ago
        Jumping spiders are amazing, and have such complex behaviour and the ability to learn. For sure tiny creatures they pack a lot in. I love spiders but avoid touching them if I can.
FrozenVoid 6y ago
The problem here is lack of "species-targeted pesticides"(biopesticides), current insecticides are broad-spectrum chemicals that will poison every insect(and aquatic animals too).
lai-yin 6y ago
Wind turbine blades in many parts of the world are regularly coated in insect biomass.
mauvehaus 6y ago
Highly recommend A Sting in the Tale and A Buzz in the Meadow. Both by Dave Goulson, entomologist focusing primarily on bees. A Buzz in the Meadow is a bit more general than A Sting in the Tale. I enjoyed them both.
george3d6 6y ago
These sort of naturalist arguments seem to make little sense when thought about more clearly. Of course that: a) Destroying the environment is probably more destabilizing than keeping it intact... that's almost always the case with conservation vs change, conservation is the safe move b) Destroying all insects (i.e a whopping 2/5th of all multi-celular bio diversity) would result in catastrophic damage... destroying 2/5th of all biodiversity would result in catastrophic damage. The onus on any given insect conservation advocate is to prove: 1. Insects are more critical to the environment than other things we put more money and time into preserving (e.g Australia should spend more on preserving black widows and less on preserving koalas) 2. A very specific insect is critical and thus should be preserved at all cost, even if it means putting more money into the nature-preservation system 3. The bio-diversity of insects as a whole is dropping at an alarming rate compared to other species and this is harmful and unprecedented (biodiversity boom and bust cycles are the norm, usually) I'm not saying the above 3 points can't be made. But this article doesn't make them. It sounds just like someone signaling "Hey, I'm a hippie ecologist, I love nature, even insects that sting, I'm that much of a group member, love me" rather than providing any new information or concrete policy proposal or even a meta-level argument for getting new information or creating new policy proposals. The general idea of "we shouldn't destroy" nature has been around since, I assume, at least 5000 years ago or so, when bronze-age humans burnt down most forests in Europe and then realized this was bad and proceeded to replant and protect, or even venerate, forested areas. It's old new, nobody disagrees we should protect nature, it's just a typical tragedy of the commons problem, and one that hasn't been handled that badly thus far.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Government and engineering alike usually apply the precautionary principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Which says we need to use grave caution if we make changes with uncertain long-term effect.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  You should consider Chesterton's fence before either destroying something, or allowing it to be destroyed. Chesterton's fence is the idea that you should understand a thing thoroughly, including its present function and what might change if it disappeared, before removing it. The hypothetical example being a fence in the middle of nowhere - seemingly useless, but you should really make sure before pulling it up as it may be serving a vital function to somebody else (or the system at large). The point being, we're stumbling into an scenario where we've killed off the majority of animals in a major ecological category, which is likely to destabilise the environment in both known and unknown ways. If we value the environment's self-sustaining capabilities, this should be greatly concerning.
BlueTie 6y ago
I have a feeling that in a few generations people will look back and wonder how we were so concerned about an iceberg melting when we were eating a credit card per week of plastic and wiping out most of life on earth. (For the record I do think global warming is a big deal - I just think the latter issues will hurt humanity far more far sooner)
- cowpig 6y ago
  Global warming is going to be disruptive on the scale of COVID (probably worse), and it's going to happen during our lifetimes.
  - sdoering 6y ago
    Without insects for pollination, it will be difficult to feed the current, let alone the growing, world population. At least at a reasonable price. Artificial pollination works. Just not at the price that nature "demands". And of course, climate change will play a massive role. But so will the sixth extinction. Given the fact that we have studies showing -75% of insects in some regions (of Germany) [1], I feel that the system is already way out of bounds. [1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
    - saddlerustle 6y ago
      There's plenty of high calorie crops that don't need pollination.
    - zikzak 6y ago
      When I was a kid (say early 80s) we would go to a camp about 60 minutes drive from our house in the city. In the summer, the round trip would leave a crust of dead inspects on the grill we'd have to scrub off when we washed the car. These days, if I see a bug on the grill it's unusual.
      - amluto 6y ago
burlesona 6y ago
I think one of the problems with most of the climate change and environmental articles like this is that they focus entirely on the negative. We aren’t going to see the massive cultural change that it would take to bring massive (positive) environmental change, until we have a shared narrative of how it’s going to be awesome and make life better for all of us. Collective action to “stop the bad thing” just doesn’t happen at the scale required unless the harm is severe, immediate, and personal. Environmental damage is not like that: each individual can barely perceive it. We do see some cultural change on the things people can perceive (such as recycling and litter reduction, the tremendous growth of “organic food”). But the majority of major environmental problems are big cumulative things that happen slowly over time and are hard for individuals to perceive. Meanwhile, you read an alarmist article and the question is “so what am I supposed to do about it?” Until we have a shared narrative on what it is we’re supposed to be doing about it, and that shared narrative paints the picture of a better future where everyone can see themselves being happier, healthier, etc., bottom-up change won’t happen. And in the western democracies, you (by design), won’t get dramatic, sweeping change until there’s broad bottom-up support.
- pinipedman 6y ago
  What if the necessary change is something like lowering the standard of living in order to reduce net resource consumption? If people will never voluntarily do that, then how do you propose to sell that as leading to a sunny future? This might be why these articles are never positive. Because there isn't a solution that people will like or vote for. No one is going to publish your article if it says we need to impose limits on births or reduce everyone's standard of living to that of sub-Saharan Africa. > And in the western democracies, you (by design), won’t get dramatic, sweeping change until there’s broad bottom-up support. Yes, this is precisely why there won't be the necessary change. And it's a great argument against democracy.
  - burlesona 6y ago
    One possibility is that it will never happen and we’re doomed. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that. But how does Tesla sell its cars for double the price of comparable gas-powered autos? How does Whole Foods sell people on $6 tomatoes? Both of those represent a choice to consume less, since inherently if you spend more money on something than you have to, then you have less money with which to consume other things. Yet nobody buying Whole Foods thinks they are “decreasing their standard of living.” Its the opposite! So the very first thing, if you want to pursue change, is get this idea of “standard of living” out of your head. Think of lifestyle instead. Can you sell people on an alternative lifestyle that results in less consumption? YES. This happens all around us all the time. It doesn’t even have to be glamorous. During the world wars, gas was rationed and slops were collected for pigs... people bought war bonds, etc. Free people can and do rise to meet collective challenges when they are well-led. Right now it’s very hard to argue the west (as a whole) is well-led. But things can change. There is a recipe that has a better chance of success, and historical precedent. So don’t give up hope.

Just make mosquitoes disappear. The rest of the insects can be managed, but mosquitoes are the worst of them.

h_anna_h 6y ago
Cockroaches too please.
- sohkamyung 6y ago
  Eliminating 4000 over species of cockroaches because 30 are associated with humans and 5 are pests is extreme, I think [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach > Cockroaches (or roaches) are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About five species are well known as pests.
- azernik 6y ago
  As scavengers, cockroaches actually fill a useful economic niche. Mosquitos are just pure shared-needle disease spreaders.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    Lots of animals (fish, amphibians, birds, spiders, other insects) depend on mosquitoes as a source of food. Also, lots of plants are pollinated by mosquitoes.
- 0xbkt 6y ago
  I live in a Mediterranean city, and in summers (hell-hole hot and humid) they're my nightmare. The big ones! They swarm the entire city. I get along well with smaller ones lighter in color though. I freak out the moment I notice one on the wall to the bathroom. Poor me.
enriquto 6y ago
We can make all mammals disappear and mosquitos will follow.
- bzb6 6y ago
  Start with yourself.
MildlySerious 6y ago
The diseases they transmit notwithstanding, I would take 10x the mosquitoes if it meant ticks, bot flies, intestinal worms, brain eating amoeba and any other parasitic creepy crawlies were gone for good.
- choeger 6y ago
  Yeah, some of these parasites really wouldn't be missed at all.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  To be fair, ticks, intestinal worms, and amoebae are not insects.
  - naringas 6y ago
    I thought that ticks are insects? however the diseases they cause are caused by bacteria and other non-insects which they carry around, which I think is the point
    - samvher 6y ago
      Ticks are arachnids and have 8 legs.
    - glormph 6y ago
      Ticks have eight legs and are thus not insects, but more closely related (I think?) to spiders.
- jfim 6y ago
  There is some research that shows that done of these parasites may have the beneficial action of preventing autoimmune disease by modulating the immune system response. See the layman version [0] or a more scholarly version [1]. [0] https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2018.00032 https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2018.00032 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/
gchamonlive 6y ago
I am no biologist, but my guess is that if mosquitoes were extinct, some spider species would too, birds would also be affected, and so on.
- chr1 6y ago
  There are many species of mosquitos, only a few of them bite people, even fewer live in cities and less than a handful transmit disease. We could start by killing the latter group.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Or breed biteless versions of the biting mozzies? Are there any mosquitos that live entirely on blood?
    - 8fingerlouie 6y ago
      Only female mosquitos suck blood, and they only suck blood when developing eggs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Egg_development_and_blood_digestion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Egg_development_and_b...
- zeristor 6y ago
  And bats
  - stjo 6y ago
    Yeah, they can go extinct too. That would have saved us a global pandemic or two.
    - klodolph 6y ago
      Why not wipe out pigs and birds, too? That will take care of some more pandemics. Hope you are not too attached to any of the following crops, which would die off without bats: cacao, peaches, bananas, guava, mango, dates, and figs.
OneGuy123 6y ago
We cannot do this in isolation because we never know if that would eg affect bird population or if we geneticaly modify mosquitos that can have unintendend consequences that no study can predict. Do not fool yourself that you can "make a study" for everything: you cannot. You can never predict what will happen if you mess with nature on a genetic level. This was already proven to be true when they released some GMO mosquitos which were not being able to reproduce. BUT WAIT! They were able to reproduce sooner or later again! How shocking! Who would have thought! And those scientists then said "this was not supposed to happen". These scientists got the problem completely wrong, up-side-down: they believed that they "studied" the problem enough. The believed that they "knew enough" that this "should not have happened". But they won't ever learn that complex system (which is pretty much everything in nature) cannot be "studied and come to a conclusion with a high degree of confidence". "High degree of confidence" and "complex system" are opposites that cannot appear in the same sentence.
- throwanem 6y ago
  I'd be interested to read a paper discussing what appears to be a previously unsuspected failure mode of sterile insect technique. Granted, I have to assume that that's what you're talking about under all the absurd hyperbole, because all the absurd hyperbole gets in the way. But if that is what you're trying to get at, do you have a cite?
  - OneGuy123 6y ago
    The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.
    - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
      Creating a caricature and insulting it is a fallacy, not an argument.
      - 6y ago
gadders 6y ago
It's only about 10 species of mosquito out of thousands that spread malaria. It would be better to wipe out the plasmodium that spreads it. This was a recent podcast on the subject, if you like your science more lighthearted: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcpf https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcpf
bottled_poe 6y ago
Interesting ethical dilemma. If we do ever encounter extraterrestrial life, I sure hope they are less brutal in their judgement of the species here on earth.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  If humans start injecting them with diseases then they would be in the right to get rid of us.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    I mean, we almost certainly will? What's the difference when every breath is teeming with a colony of completely foreign diseases?
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      Because life - at least hear on earth - is pretty much made up by all kinds of bacteria and virus. So aliens might wipe us out, because their system can't handle it. But parent spoke about the right to fight, when we would attack, like ticks do attack us, like other parsites.
    - curryst 6y ago
      You presume that their biological processes are similar to us, which isn't necessarily true. It almost seems unlikely to be true. If most of those diseases can't make the jump from a human to a fish or a bird that's from the same planet and even the same evolutionary line, it seems unlikely that we would be susceptible to each other's diseases. This isn't like when Europeans brought Small Pox to the New World; those were still humans.
      - jedimastert 6y ago
        True, but every once in a blue moon you get a virus that's completely harmless to the host that by pure random luck can make that jump and...gestures broadly
vincnetas 6y ago
I was really hoping that this was sarcasm, but from replies i see that lots of people take it seriously. Wow, i'm shocked, hope we never will have such ability to eliminate a species on demand when someone got annoyed during camping, without even thinking about the consequences of such action and alternatives how desired outcome could be achieved.
- baxtr 6y ago
  AFAIK, mosquitos are the animals that take the most human lives per annum. It is not only about "getting annoyed" during camping. EDIT, I found a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_h...
  - alfanick 6y ago
    Let's have humans evolve instead of killing things that were here before us.
    - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
      Natural history is full of examples of "lets kill things that were here before us". So your argument can't be a reference and a call to a natural state of being. What is it about then?
    - refurb 6y ago
      You’re against killing the plague? That’s silly.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 6y ago
        I'm trying to remember where I read it, but someone once penned an article, crying about the crime of exterminating smallpox. They were serious about it, too. I wouldn't worry. I'm sure that both Russia and the US have some saved up...just in case.
macspoofing 6y ago
Are we really really sure there won't be any unintended consequences to removing mosquitoes?
- jbob2000 6y ago
  Have you looked around you lately? What about the unintended consequences of... all of human technology and civilization? Please, get rid of the mosquitos! I don’t want to have to douse myself in chemicals just to go for a hike or enjoy a weekend of camping.
- throwanem 6y ago
  Of course not, but when has that ever stopped anyone?
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Plenty of animals make mosquitoes (and their eggs) a big part of their diets (fish, birbs, spiders, and usually involuntarily, humans).
b0rsuk 6y ago
Mosquitos eat mostly flower nectar. Males never bite. Females still eat nectar but need blood to produce eggs. Mosquito larvae are very good for filtering water.

Because the website seems down: https://web.archive.org/web/20210125095633/http://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destroy-insects-at-our-own-peril https://web.archive.org/web/20210125095633/http://nautil.us/...

vulkoingim 6y ago
I think the mobile version is down (the one it is linked to), this one works for me: https://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destroy-insects-at-our-own-peril https://nautil.us/issue/95/escape/we-crush-poison-and-destro...

cupofcoffee 6y ago

Yes, we destroy the environment all the time. Yet nothing major gets done about it. The average person isn't the one that needs convincing, it's the higher ups and how to reach them? Joe Biden got the US back to the Paris agreement, I hope that changes something for the better.

worldsayshi 6y ago
> The average person isn't the one that needs convincing If the average person cared enough there would be political pressure on those higher ups. Looking at how people vote (not just thinking about US here) I'm not convinced people care all that much.
- darkwater 6y ago
  Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. The problem here is that most of this issues have no visible direct correlation to our actions as humans, so to convince the average person you have to teach them very, very well. And starting from the very beginning, when they are small children. And that's not quick. So, while this solution must be pursued for sure, at the same time we need quicker actions on those issues, and the quickest way is to deploy them at the management/politicians/law levels.
- franga2000 6y ago
  It's not that people don't care, it's that they've been put into a position where they have to care about other things more. The greatest threat for the average person isn't climate change, it's going broke. When you're living paycheck to paycheck, dumping every penny you earn into rent, food and (in the US) student loans and basic healthcare, are you really going to vote for the people who want to raise your taxes, ban the cheap crap you buy and regulate their employers who will pass the expense down to you in order to keep their margins high? No, all of those things are immediate dangers to your ability to survive. Add to that the constant threats that terrorists/immigrants/communists... are "coming to destroy our freedoms/way of life" and people have so many more (both real and fake) threats looming over them that the distant and (to some) uncertain threat of climate change is basically at the bottom of their priority list.

idclip 6y ago

People keep mentioning what annoys them and how much they want it gone ... people here say its not the job of the average joe yet who is going to be affected? ... Its all our doing. We will bear the brunt, if not the responsibility. I think some of us will survive whats coming .. most, i fear, wont.

bayindirh 6y ago
As a person who hates to kill bugs (they're alive and absolutely required in nature), I have an agreement with them in my mind: - The outside is yours, you can do whatever you want there. - Inside the walls is my own territory. I want you in minimum numbers there. - If you're an harmless bug (most except cockroaches, centipedes and venomous animals), I'll transport you to nature with utmost care. Notes: - Balconies are outside. - I'll try my best to not to poison outside or kill you in high numbers unless you try to invade my home.
- vincnetas 6y ago
  My wife had "Kill on sight" policy for spiders. Lots of screaming included. I have negotiated for them "safe escort to backyard" policy some time ago. Feel much better about them now.
  - hordeallergy 6y ago
    In a sense spiders are part of the problem - insect killers. I keep one in the kitchen window, and a little jumping one lives on the bedroom roof, migrates across to the windows a couple of times a day, but all others strictly belong outside.
    - ljf 6y ago
      Jumping spiders are amazing, and have such complex behaviour and the ability to learn. For sure tiny creatures they pack a lot in. I love spiders but avoid touching them if I can.

FrozenVoid 6y ago

The problem here is lack of "species-targeted pesticides"(biopesticides), current insecticides are broad-spectrum chemicals that will poison every insect(and aquatic animals too).

lai-yin 6y ago

Wind turbine blades in many parts of the world are regularly coated in insect biomass.

mauvehaus 6y ago

Highly recommend A Sting in the Tale and A Buzz in the Meadow. Both by Dave Goulson, entomologist focusing primarily on bees. A Buzz in the Meadow is a bit more general than A Sting in the Tale. I enjoyed them both.

george3d6 6y ago

These sort of naturalist arguments seem to make little sense when thought about more clearly. Of course that: a) Destroying the environment is probably more destabilizing than keeping it intact... that's almost always the case with conservation vs change, conservation is the safe move b) Destroying all insects (i.e a whopping 2/5th of all multi-celular bio diversity) would result in catastrophic damage... destroying 2/5th of all biodiversity would result in catastrophic damage. The onus on any given insect conservation advocate is to prove: 1. Insects are more critical to the environment than other things we put more money and time into preserving (e.g Australia should spend more on preserving black widows and less on preserving koalas) 2. A very specific insect is critical and thus should be preserved at all cost, even if it means putting more money into the nature-preservation system 3. The bio-diversity of insects as a whole is dropping at an alarming rate compared to other species and this is harmful and unprecedented (biodiversity boom and bust cycles are the norm, usually) I'm not saying the above 3 points can't be made. But this article doesn't make them. It sounds just like someone signaling "Hey, I'm a hippie ecologist, I love nature, even insects that sting, I'm that much of a group member, love me" rather than providing any new information or concrete policy proposal or even a meta-level argument for getting new information or creating new policy proposals. The general idea of "we shouldn't destroy" nature has been around since, I assume, at least 5000 years ago or so, when bronze-age humans burnt down most forests in Europe and then realized this was bad and proceeded to replant and protect, or even venerate, forested areas. It's old new, nobody disagrees we should protect nature, it's just a typical tragedy of the commons problem, and one that hasn't been handled that badly thus far.

kzrdude 6y ago
Government and engineering alike usually apply the precautionary principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle Which says we need to use grave caution if we make changes with uncertain long-term effect.
beaconstudios 6y ago
You should consider Chesterton's fence before either destroying something, or allowing it to be destroyed. Chesterton's fence is the idea that you should understand a thing thoroughly, including its present function and what might change if it disappeared, before removing it. The hypothetical example being a fence in the middle of nowhere - seemingly useless, but you should really make sure before pulling it up as it may be serving a vital function to somebody else (or the system at large). The point being, we're stumbling into an scenario where we've killed off the majority of animals in a major ecological category, which is likely to destabilise the environment in both known and unknown ways. If we value the environment's self-sustaining capabilities, this should be greatly concerning.

BlueTie 6y ago

I have a feeling that in a few generations people will look back and wonder how we were so concerned about an iceberg melting when we were eating a credit card per week of plastic and wiping out most of life on earth. (For the record I do think global warming is a big deal - I just think the latter issues will hurt humanity far more far sooner)

cowpig 6y ago
Global warming is going to be disruptive on the scale of COVID (probably worse), and it's going to happen during our lifetimes.
- sdoering 6y ago
  Without insects for pollination, it will be difficult to feed the current, let alone the growing, world population. At least at a reasonable price. Artificial pollination works. Just not at the price that nature "demands". And of course, climate change will play a massive role. But so will the sixth extinction. Given the fact that we have studies showing -75% of insects in some regions (of Germany) [1], I feel that the system is already way out of bounds. [1]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    There's plenty of high calorie crops that don't need pollination.
  - zikzak 6y ago
    When I was a kid (say early 80s) we would go to a camp about 60 minutes drive from our house in the city. In the summer, the round trip would leave a crust of dead inspects on the grill we'd have to scrub off when we washed the car. These days, if I see a bug on the grill it's unusual.
    - amluto 6y ago

burlesona 6y ago

I think one of the problems with most of the climate change and environmental articles like this is that they focus entirely on the negative. We aren’t going to see the massive cultural change that it would take to bring massive (positive) environmental change, until we have a shared narrative of how it’s going to be awesome and make life better for all of us. Collective action to “stop the bad thing” just doesn’t happen at the scale required unless the harm is severe, immediate, and personal. Environmental damage is not like that: each individual can barely perceive it. We do see some cultural change on the things people can perceive (such as recycling and litter reduction, the tremendous growth of “organic food”). But the majority of major environmental problems are big cumulative things that happen slowly over time and are hard for individuals to perceive. Meanwhile, you read an alarmist article and the question is “so what am I supposed to do about it?” Until we have a shared narrative on what it is we’re supposed to be doing about it, and that shared narrative paints the picture of a better future where everyone can see themselves being happier, healthier, etc., bottom-up change won’t happen. And in the western democracies, you (by design), won’t get dramatic, sweeping change until there’s broad bottom-up support.

pinipedman 6y ago
What if the necessary change is something like lowering the standard of living in order to reduce net resource consumption? If people will never voluntarily do that, then how do you propose to sell that as leading to a sunny future? This might be why these articles are never positive. Because there isn't a solution that people will like or vote for. No one is going to publish your article if it says we need to impose limits on births or reduce everyone's standard of living to that of sub-Saharan Africa. > And in the western democracies, you (by design), won’t get dramatic, sweeping change until there’s broad bottom-up support. Yes, this is precisely why there won't be the necessary change. And it's a great argument against democracy.
- burlesona 6y ago
  One possibility is that it will never happen and we’re doomed. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that. But how does Tesla sell its cars for double the price of comparable gas-powered autos? How does Whole Foods sell people on $6 tomatoes? Both of those represent a choice to consume less, since inherently if you spend more money on something than you have to, then you have less money with which to consume other things. Yet nobody buying Whole Foods thinks they are “decreasing their standard of living.” Its the opposite! So the very first thing, if you want to pursue change, is get this idea of “standard of living” out of your head. Think of lifestyle instead. Can you sell people on an alternative lifestyle that results in less consumption? YES. This happens all around us all the time. It doesn’t even have to be glamorous. During the world wars, gas was rationed and slops were collected for pigs... people bought war bonds, etc. Free people can and do rise to meet collective challenges when they are well-led. Right now it’s very hard to argue the west (as a whole) is well-led. But things can change. There is a recipe that has a better chance of success, and historical precedent. So don’t give up hope.