7 ms·

I think the major difference between this attempt at species destruction and other previous attempts is the massive amount of human disease and death already pe

I 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 ago
Huh? 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 ago
    I 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 ago
        The 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 ago
whats 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 ago
  I would call it a parasite, not a predator.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  in 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 ago
    and 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

nate_meurer 15y ago

Huh? 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 ago
  I 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 ago
      The 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 ago

whats 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 ago
I would call it a parasite, not a predator.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
in 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 ago
  and 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