4 ms·

Most mosquitoes are harmless, so getting rid of all of them would be incredibly stupid. Getting rid of only species which carry malaria is another matter entire

Most mosquitoes are harmless, so getting rid of all of them would be incredibly stupid. Getting rid of only species which carry malaria is another matter entirely. Also, the fact humans have destroyed a lot of biodiversity already is no excuse to do so in the future.

aeternum 6y ago
Mosquitos can transmit diseases that can negatively affect other animals. Perhaps we would have more biodiversity without mosquitoes.
- kodah 6y ago
  Can this not also easily be stated as, "mosquitos keep populations in check?"
  - filoleg 6y ago
    I mean, so do wars and pandemics, and yet we are not quite thinking of those as good things.
    - kodah 6y ago
      Wars are not biological, unless you subscribe to some very meta-thought on population control. Pandemics could be argued to be a biological control on population, but I think mosquitos would be of more naturally-recurring consequence that make it a "normal" form of population control.
      - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        It sounds like you're engaging in an appeal to nature fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
        kodah 6y ago
        Nope. I am not saying "because it is natural it is good". I am saying that mosquitos, and their negative side effects, play some role in the ecosystem and eradicating them entirely sounds suspiciously like fucking with the firmware too much.
        filoleg 6y ago
        >I am saying that mosquitos, and their negative side effects, play some role in the ecosystem and eradicating them entirely sounds suspiciously like fucking with the firmware too much. Would you say the same about diseases and pandemics? There are plenty of things humans do that sound suspiciously like "fucking with the firmware too much", but I don't think many would argue that eradicating polio or fighting cancer or HIV are bad things. And even the "side effects" excuse would apply here too, because letting those people pass on their genes to their offspring potentially interrupts the "natural ecosystem" and introduces weak links into the gene pool. But there are plenty of good reasons for why this line of thought would not gather much sympathy or consideration these days.
        kodah 6y ago
        > Would you say the same about diseases and pandemics? For sure. Anything that we chip away in population control will end up having effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. I don't understand how that's a controversial statement. That doesn't mean we shouldn't but it also doesn't mean eradicating things like mosquitos is a good idea either. The same arguments have been given time and again when talking about genetically modified species of insects and animals; the variables of change are too high to predict how it will affect the world around us. Imagine if all animals and all humans only died of old age from the dawn of time until now. Would Earth be able to sustain itself? I think not. Maybe biology has changed since I've taken it, but these things are considered pieces that are a larger part of homeostasis for ecosystems. The last part of your statement is just generally confusing.
flower-giraffe 6y ago
This story is about Aedes aegypti - it certainly does spread dengue fever, chikungunya, Zika fever, Mayaro and yellow fever. I’m not super comfortable with the unknown risks related to GM insects but having seen the impact of dengue first hand I hope this proves successful at limiting the insect population in urban areas.

aeternum 6y ago

Mosquitos can transmit diseases that can negatively affect other animals. Perhaps we would have more biodiversity without mosquitoes.

kodah 6y ago
Can this not also easily be stated as, "mosquitos keep populations in check?"
- filoleg 6y ago
  I mean, so do wars and pandemics, and yet we are not quite thinking of those as good things.
  - kodah 6y ago
    Wars are not biological, unless you subscribe to some very meta-thought on population control. Pandemics could be argued to be a biological control on population, but I think mosquitos would be of more naturally-recurring consequence that make it a "normal" form of population control.
    - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
      It sounds like you're engaging in an appeal to nature fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
      - kodah 6y ago
        Nope. I am not saying "because it is natural it is good". I am saying that mosquitos, and their negative side effects, play some role in the ecosystem and eradicating them entirely sounds suspiciously like fucking with the firmware too much.
        filoleg 6y ago
        >I am saying that mosquitos, and their negative side effects, play some role in the ecosystem and eradicating them entirely sounds suspiciously like fucking with the firmware too much. Would you say the same about diseases and pandemics? There are plenty of things humans do that sound suspiciously like "fucking with the firmware too much", but I don't think many would argue that eradicating polio or fighting cancer or HIV are bad things. And even the "side effects" excuse would apply here too, because letting those people pass on their genes to their offspring potentially interrupts the "natural ecosystem" and introduces weak links into the gene pool. But there are plenty of good reasons for why this line of thought would not gather much sympathy or consideration these days.
        kodah 6y ago
        > Would you say the same about diseases and pandemics? For sure. Anything that we chip away in population control will end up having effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. I don't understand how that's a controversial statement. That doesn't mean we shouldn't but it also doesn't mean eradicating things like mosquitos is a good idea either. The same arguments have been given time and again when talking about genetically modified species of insects and animals; the variables of change are too high to predict how it will affect the world around us. Imagine if all animals and all humans only died of old age from the dawn of time until now. Would Earth be able to sustain itself? I think not. Maybe biology has changed since I've taken it, but these things are considered pieces that are a larger part of homeostasis for ecosystems. The last part of your statement is just generally confusing.

flower-giraffe 6y ago

This story is about Aedes aegypti - it certainly does spread dengue fever, chikungunya, Zika fever, Mayaro and yellow fever. I’m not super comfortable with the unknown risks related to GM insects but having seen the impact of dengue first hand I hope this proves successful at limiting the insect population in urban areas.