> They are invasive species that exploded in Australia due to a lack of natural predators. How you can cite their existence as a refutation of anything I've sai

> They are invasive species that exploded in Australia due to a lack of natural predators. How you can cite their existence as a refutation of anything I've said baffles me. I wasn't 'citing their existence', so much as declaring an eagerness to remove them. The context was you started by saying: > You kill one thing or change one thing and there are always myriad knock on effects. Always. Anytime you do anything that's actually at all effective, there is hell to pay. I said that sounded alarmist, as there were plenty of contra examples - such as removing a dozen or so named non-indigenous pests from Australia. You said: > Australia is like the poster child for unintended ecological consequences. All those introduced species you cite to refute my opinion I would cite to support it. I asked how that could sit alongside your claim that 'you kill one thing ... there is hell to pay'. And here we are. My point stands -- removing these introduced pests via a terminator gene or similar that targets precisely those organisms would be a fantastic result, and almost definitely have no negative effects, though of course I'd want that to be thoroughly evaluated. An easy fallback option exists (re-introduction).