> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus

> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop". We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all. I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.