3 ms·
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 d
by 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 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.