2 ms·

What many people fail to consider is the alternatives to this. There is no scenario where the US and Florida government are just going to say that mosquito bor

What many people fail to consider is the alternatives to this. There is no scenario where the US and Florida government are just going to say that mosquito born illness is just a fact of life and we just have to life with it. Mosquito control efforts will happen. Right now that involves spraying a bunch of pesticides everywhere. If the mosquitos develop resistance, likely new pesticides with potential more environmental effects will be used. In fact, one of the reasons DDT was used so widely throughout the US was for mosquito control. What these genetically engineered mosquitos offer is a chance for a more surgical, more environmentally friendly mosquito control option. Instead of massive spraying that kills not only disease causing mosquitoes but likely harms a lot of other bystander species as well, if we can specifically target the biting, disease carrying mosquitos effectively, both humans and the environment will be better off.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
I mean that’s the story if all goes well. But these things tend to have unintended consequences. Your comments about eradicating this so-called pest sound similar to the arguments for mass fumigation of DDT. “This harmless solution will eliminate pests that plague humans.” But then it turned out collapsing ecosystems was bad and it also nearly drove the Peregrine Falcon to extinction because it would accumulate in their bodies and damaged their eggs. So sure. Assuming we know all the possible downsides the happy story makes sense. But we keep finding out that we don’t know all the downsides in advance. In nature, everything is connected. We have a long history of thinking simple technological solutions will solve our problems, and especially in nature that kind of thinking has led to environmental disaster time and time again.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  > But then it turned out collapsing ecosystems was bad and it also nearly drove the Peregrine Falcon to extinction because it would accumulate in their bodies and damaged their eggs. I would argue, that the benefit of cutting down endemic malaria and yellow fever in the United States and the lives said and the people who did not get sick was worth the risk to the Peregrine Falcon. In nature, everything is connected. But to believe that it is too connected for humans to be able to successfully manipulate the environment for our benefit is anti-science. Growing more food, curing disease, increasing human longevity does have follow-on effects for nature, but I would argue that manipulation of Nature for human’s benefit is something we as humans can and should do. Yes, we should be aware of unintended side effects, but we cannot let ourselves be paralyzed by fear.
  - tspike 6y ago
    > anti-science Science is a method of inquiry, and that inquiry is typically and always ought to be bound by ethical restraints. I hope this particular experiment goes well and that we see a large benefit, but dismissing all ethical objections to ecosystem manipulation as "anti-science" is ludicrous.
    - op00to 6y ago
      The objection is that this is basically as benign as an experiment gets. Small population of invasive species - we brought them here, and they are only a small (2%) portion of total mosquito population, but cause most of the disease.
    - unishark 6y ago
      Well if the ethical position is that manipulations based on science are "unnatural" and therefore objectionable, then it is pretty directly anti-science.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I am not saying categorically that we should not manipulate nature. But that it is extremely common especially for European descended cultures (colonizers) to be over confident in the correctness of their priorities and their understanding of the effects. Anti science has nothing to do with this. I’d advocate for more scientific study generally. We thought we had a great thing with glyphosate and we released it in farms all over the world and now the monarch butterflies are endangered and farm workers are getting cancer. If we are willing to learn about the problems these “quick solutions” will cause it forces us to look to alternative means. There are no quick fixes when it comes to the environment. That entire mode of thinking is what has caused so many of our environmental problems in the first place.
    - bedobi 6y ago
      The mosquitoes in question are invasive species brought to these ecosystems by European colonizers.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago

I mean that’s the story if all goes well. But these things tend to have unintended consequences. Your comments about eradicating this so-called pest sound similar to the arguments for mass fumigation of DDT. “This harmless solution will eliminate pests that plague humans.” But then it turned out collapsing ecosystems was bad and it also nearly drove the Peregrine Falcon to extinction because it would accumulate in their bodies and damaged their eggs. So sure. Assuming we know all the possible downsides the happy story makes sense. But we keep finding out that we don’t know all the downsides in advance. In nature, everything is connected. We have a long history of thinking simple technological solutions will solve our problems, and especially in nature that kind of thinking has led to environmental disaster time and time again.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> But then it turned out collapsing ecosystems was bad and it also nearly drove the Peregrine Falcon to extinction because it would accumulate in their bodies and damaged their eggs. I would argue, that the benefit of cutting down endemic malaria and yellow fever in the United States and the lives said and the people who did not get sick was worth the risk to the Peregrine Falcon. In nature, everything is connected. But to believe that it is too connected for humans to be able to successfully manipulate the environment for our benefit is anti-science. Growing more food, curing disease, increasing human longevity does have follow-on effects for nature, but I would argue that manipulation of Nature for human’s benefit is something we as humans can and should do. Yes, we should be aware of unintended side effects, but we cannot let ourselves be paralyzed by fear.
- tspike 6y ago
  > anti-science Science is a method of inquiry, and that inquiry is typically and always ought to be bound by ethical restraints. I hope this particular experiment goes well and that we see a large benefit, but dismissing all ethical objections to ecosystem manipulation as "anti-science" is ludicrous.
  - op00to 6y ago
    The objection is that this is basically as benign as an experiment gets. Small population of invasive species - we brought them here, and they are only a small (2%) portion of total mosquito population, but cause most of the disease.
  - unishark 6y ago
    Well if the ethical position is that manipulations based on science are "unnatural" and therefore objectionable, then it is pretty directly anti-science.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  I am not saying categorically that we should not manipulate nature. But that it is extremely common especially for European descended cultures (colonizers) to be over confident in the correctness of their priorities and their understanding of the effects. Anti science has nothing to do with this. I’d advocate for more scientific study generally. We thought we had a great thing with glyphosate and we released it in farms all over the world and now the monarch butterflies are endangered and farm workers are getting cancer. If we are willing to learn about the problems these “quick solutions” will cause it forces us to look to alternative means. There are no quick fixes when it comes to the environment. That entire mode of thinking is what has caused so many of our environmental problems in the first place.
  - bedobi 6y ago
    The mosquitoes in question are invasive species brought to these ecosystems by European colonizers.