8 ms·
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquit
by 0x12 15y ago
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic.
But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside.
DDT looked pretty good once upon a time.
Another problem is that we simply have not mapped all the interactions between species within an ecosystem and eradicating one species might upset the balance in a hard to predict way.
Introduction of a new species can be problematic:
http://www.animalcontrol.com.au/rabbit.htm http://www.animalcontrol.com.au/rabbit.htm
We have some solid proof for that. Maybe 40 years from now we will know why eradicating something as obviously harmful as a mosquito can be problematic too.
That's the only way to learn, it would be nice if this research was proven correct.
- gerggerg 15y agoI think the major difference between this attempt at species destruction and other previous attempts is the massive amount of human disease and death already perpetrated by the clumsy little biters. It comes down to determining whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. or trying to kill off mosquitoes. Wikipedia claims that malaria alone causes 2.23% of yearly human death world wide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria Thats a pretty ridiculous number if you think about it.
- nate_meurer 15y agoHuh? What previous attempts at species destruction are you referring to?
- paganel 15y ago> Huh? What previous attempts at species destruction are you referring to? This one, maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ?
- nate_meurer 15y agoI don't think so, since that too was ultimately aimed at preventing human casualties. gerggerg is claiming there's a big difference between this and previous deliberate attempts to wipe out a whole species. I'm asking, what are those previous attempts? I can think of none for which human welfare wasn't the main selling point. What I'm ultimately doing is disagreeing with the gerggerg; I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species.
- jcampbell1 15y ago> I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species. You must see the irony in that statement. The whole point is to eradicate Plasmodium vivax, and five other species from the earth.
- nate_meurer 15y agoThe goal is to eradicate malaria in humans. No one claims that we can extinct any plasmodium as a species, and no one cares. In addition, there's a bit of a difference between a microbial parasite and mosquitoes, with regard to ecological roles that benefit humans. I'm sure you can see the difference. You seem to prefer pot-shots to reasoned defences your statements. I'm not surprised; I do occasionally hear statements like "Let's start spraying DDT from planes and dumping oil on wetlands" from people without the means or will to support them, but I am disappointed to hear it on HN.
- moe 15y agowhats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. One could argue that in the light of human overpopulation it might not be wise to remove one of our last natural predators. A cynical stance, for sure, and it gets only more cynical when you consider that we might be trading mosquito-deaths for starvation-deaths here...
- felipemnoa 15y agoI would call it a parasite, not a predator.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoin the light of human overpopulation Malthus might make that argument, but others, like Julian Simon, would say quite the opposite. The Malthusian theory is that we've only got a certain amount of arable land, and thus can only support a finite number of people. Once we hit that maximum population, mankind stagnates at that point. The competing theory -- and the one that has proven through history to be correct -- is that the most important resource, the one that outweighs all others, is the human mind. The more people we have, the more creativity we can bring to bear on a problem. Thus, the problem of agriculture has been largely solved. Humans have invented irrigation, terracing, crop rotation, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation. We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.
- moe 15y agoand the one that has proven through history to be correct Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
- keenerd 15y agoOn the problematic side, the cheap boric acid solution (pun!) will likely be the most used. And this will be bad. 1) Boric acid will kill any insect that ingests it. 2) If you leave rotting fruit out, every nectar lover will drink it. From experience, this will be at least 50% honeybees. So yeah, it will crash native honeybee populations too. If you are curious and want to see how effective it would be, mix up some bait without the poison. After a few hours, enough for every bug to find it, sit next to it for ten minutes. Count bees vs mosquitoes, you'll probably be disappointed.
- eavc 15y agoHoneybees are much larger than mosquitoes. Could you simply screen the honeybees out?
- burgerbrain 15y agoThat's so low tech, it's genius.
- guelo 15y agoAccording to the EPA "technical boric acid is practically nontoxic to birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates, and relatively nontoxic to beneficial insects." http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf
- goombastic 15y agoI thought about this as well. I am going to leave boric acid laced juice socks out at night. BTW this has worked as a solution for cockroaches terrifically well at my place for the last 20 years.
- sk5t 15y agoWhat is a 'juice sock'? Is it like a windsock? A size-12 tube sock soaked in Borax?
- 15y ago
- burgerbrain 15y agoIf Benjamin Franklin had his way, we'd still think DDT was a great idea. Eagles be damned.
- nate_meurer 15y agoHow so? Asking seriously -- I just started reading a bio of Franklin, and I'm hungry for details.
- burgerbrain 15y agoBenjamin Franklin advocated making the turkey the national bird instead of the bald eagle. I assume that if he were successful, people wouldn't care quite so much about eagles these days ;)
- sophacles 15y agoThe argument probably goes something like this: 1. Ben Franklin wanted the wild turkey to be the national bird/symbol, not the bald eagle. 2. DDT is particularly devastating to bald eagles (due to transmission through fish which concentrate the DDT and makes the shells of bird eggs too thin to properly allow full term hatching (bald eagles really like fish)). 3. Since the bald eagle is the national symbol of the US this was a major rallying cry of the anti-DDT folks 4. If the turkey was instead the national symbol, presumably fewer people would have cared about the DDT effects on eagles, causing a weaker response to DDT dangers (e.g. not putting in a blanket ban on its use). NOTE: point 4 is pure speculation on outcome, but not unreasonable. Also, the argument I present is just me speculating that is what the GP meant.
- burgerbrain 15y agoJust about nailed it. Of course I'm mostly joking, but I hate birds and recently got a bunch of bug bites....
- zach 15y agoMaybe 40 years from now we will know why eradicating something as obviously harmful as a mosquito can be problematic too. Well sure, we'll know why when the aliens feel free to blow up our planet after we kill all the mosquitoes they put here. http://hellyeahliloandstitch.tumblr.com/post/3095035674/earth-is-a-protected-wildlife-preserve-yeah http://hellyeahliloandstitch.tumblr.com/post/3095035674/eart...
- velocicopter 15y agoThere seems to be an assumption here that ecosystems are friendly places but they really aren't. Nature does not know best. The vast majority all species in history have been wiped out by their natural environments, many by their own genes. All actions that we take to try to fix problems go on to create new problems. It's expected. And, of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't act, unless we have a good explanation now as to why the harm of a proposed course of action outweighs the benefits. The alternative is to follow some kind of 'Precautionary Principle', which, as David Deutsch has pointed out, can only damage our ability to handle threats which we do not foresee. Meanwhile, people's lives are in known peril from malaria.
- Dove 15y agoBut every time there is a large scale intervention like this . . . We could try scaling slower. Say, eradicating mosquitos one 100 square mile block at a time, over the course of a century.
- mun2mun 15y agoIt is not that easy. Ecosystem is different in areas. Who knows there is an ecosystem based around mosquitoes. For example small birds and fish are dependent on mosquitoes egg. Other big animals dependent on these birds and fish. Suddenly destroying mosquitoes without examining the ecosystem in the area may cause huge bad impact.
- nasmorn 15y agoYes but mosquitoes don't travel so far, it is only necessary to kill them in already inhabited areas. Especially in cities since that is were increasingly most of the population is. We don't have to kill 90% of mosquitoes on earth just 90% around major cities.
- Dove 15y agoOf course. That's why it makes sense to do things on a small scale before doing them on a large scale, and to act slowly. If there are regions that need mosquitoes or effects that manifest over decades, we can correct mistakes -- or at least, damage will be limited locally. It's not that meddling in a complex system is impossible. It's just that you need to proceed at a scale and speed your current understanding justifies.
- jcampbell1 15y ago> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine as a compound to wage war against malaria. If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you? I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands, and gassed DDT all over human populated areas. I'd tell them to do it again.
- ced 15y agoIt is completely non-toxic to humans From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health: DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World Health Organization (WHO) The evidence on Wiki is mixed. Maybe it makes sense to use it for malaria, but there are also other solutions that might have better cost/benefit.
- nate_meurer 15y ago> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?" This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net. > "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands" Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?
- jcampbell1 15y agoIt has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today. What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.
- sliverstorm 15y agoMakes a good case... Really? Does it? Because I've read that article several times, and as far as I can tell, the "case" it makes for erradicating them consists entirely of the opinions of some scientists and the half-baked idea that "obviously something else would fill in the niche". Heck, every time I read that article, considering the amount of time they devote to the impact of erradication, I am astounded at the conclusions they draw, which they seem to have been actively tearing down for the duration of the article.
- qq66 15y agoEcosystems are actually pretty robust. If mosquitoes are eradicated something else would come and fill the void. Humans are so flexible that while the eradication of mosquitoes will probably cause the extinction of several of their predators, we'll find a way around whatever few problems bubble up to our level.