10 ms·
The first fact you need to know about this: There are ~800 mosquito species. This is about removing 1 of them which can and do carry diseases that kill people.
by BurningFrog 5y ago
The first fact you need to know about this:
There are ~800 mosquito species. This is about removing 1 of them which can and do carry diseases that kill people.
If this is successful, the ecological niche left by Aedes aegypti will be filled by other mosquito species, and no ecological disaster will occur.
- sorokod 5y agoThing is, smashing the existing equilibrium is not good or bad, just as nature is not good or bad. Most likely a new equilibrium will be established without checking with us, humans. We, may like it less then the original one though.
- davedx 5y ago> If this is successful, the ecological niche left by Aedes aegypti will be filled by other mosquito species, and no ecological disaster will occur. Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems? I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a huge claim like that?
- ceejayoz 5y agoWe've inadvertently wiped out a whole bunch of species, and nearly done so to a whole bunch more. These have had ecological impact, but one more isn't gonna make or break things, especially having specifically done the research in this case in a way we didn't for most of the extinct species. We've got concrete examples of getting rid of some species with near-zero consequences, like the guinea worm.
- artificialLimbs 5y agoNear zero consequences of which we are aware.
- danans 5y agoPhrases like "near zero consequences" usually implicitly refer to the consequences for human populations, domestic animals, or species that have cultural value to us or are canaries in coal mines (i.e. polar bears). As long as the macro-ecological systems we rely on continue to interface with us in mostly the same way we make the compromise that we are aware enough of the side effects. It's easier to take this perspective with disease carrying mosquitos because of the sheer quantity of human suffering and death they cause. But this view does have pitfalls, like how we initially missed the collapse of pollinator species that we depend on, or the risks we take with genetically cloned fruit like Cavendish bananas which are a single pathogen away from being wiped out.
- ceejayoz 5y ago"We can't ever know anything enough to do anything" isn't a very useful way to go about the world. The same vague, dark hinting can be applied in the other direction - perhaps there are consequences from introducing Aedes aegypti into the Americas via the slave trade we'll resolve by eradicating the invasive species.
- golergka 5y agoThat's a Russel's teapot right here.
- georgia_peach 5y agoCause and effect and caution are for the little people. This is a startup board. We move fast and break things. In this case, Florida Man.
- mjburgess 5y agoI havent heard this claim before. When we build bridges, I dont hear it. Nor roads, or cities; nor houses, nor farms. Actually, I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history. Perhaps I dont get out much.
- andrewclunn 5y ago> I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history. Is this true? I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic here, but if that is a defensible claim I want to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
- abathur 5y agoAIUI mosquito-borne illness is estimated to have killed more than 4% of all of the humans that have ever lived https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/10/03/has_malaria_really_killed_half_of_everyone_who_ever_lived.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/10/03/has_malaria...
- BurningFrog 5y ago"Malaria may have killed half of all the people that ever lived" https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria%20may%20have%20killed%20half,children%20in%20sub%2DSaharan%20Africa https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria....
- whimsicalism 5y agoI think people forget quite how long the population tail in Africa is and people also forget that malaria used to be endemic to Europe.
- saalweachter 5y agoAnd that previous attempts to curb the reign of mosquitoes include things like "draining all swamps everywhere". Take a look at the coastline of Long Island on satellite maps, and all the scars left by that time they tried to eliminate all of the salt marshes to get rid of mosquitoes near NYC.
- arbitrage 5y ago> Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems? In disaster movies, yes, they say that all the time. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Reality and methodical science are a bit more nuanced.
- ppseafield 5y agoThere is no shortage of mosquitoes in the Keys, this particular species is invasive due to humans, and it's only 4% of the mosquito population there.
- wnevets 5y ago> Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems? We (humans) are constantly interfering with ecosystems, including wiping out species. However for some reason every single time there is a post about getting rid of this mosquito species there are comments super worried about the ecological impact. I wager the deforestation taking place in Amazon will have a much larger impact than the absence of this species of mosquito
- johnny22 5y agoI think there' a lot of "too good to be true" here. If it seems to be a total net benefit, then it's unlikely to be so to most of us.
- logicchains 5y agoYou don't see a difference between deliberately trying to wipe out a species and accidentally doing it while in pursuit of other goals?
- wnevets 5y agoDo you honestly think the ecosystem or the species cares about our intent? We (humans) are literally fishing entire species to extinction because we like the taste.
- dekhn 5y agoI would say, considering all the facts, Oxitec has been the least irresponsible and most thoughtful of companies addressing this and I believe they've earned their chance at this point because nobody has been able to come up with a solid prediction of negative outcomes that was accurate. This isn't an existential risk and it's worth the experimentation.
- outworlder 5y ago> I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a huge claim like that? People have studied this for a long time and reached the conclusion that no ecological disaster is likely to occur. We can never be 100% sure of anything, of course. But we can make informed decisions.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt's an invasive species. We wipe them out all the time.
- kickout 5y agoYou are correct but I think you are discounting the scalability of this approach and tech. I view this more as a proof of concept. In many years, it will likely be trivial to expand this to all mosquito species relatively effortlessly.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> In many years, it will likely be trivial to expand this to all mosquito species relatively effortlessly. The vast majority of mosquito species don't bite humans, so there's zero reason to do so.
- kickout 5y agoYes, but how does that contradict my statement? We would go after the biting species first and species that somehow are causing humans 'harm'. Don't think anyone wants to wipe out 800 species on a whim. IF the tool scales, we can selectively apply it
- Tagbert 5y ago“expand this to all mosquito species” Why would you state that? That is explicitly not the goal of this effort and there is no justification for taking that approach. It sounds like fear mongering.
- kickout 5y agoI'm confused. I'm not fear-mongering at all. I'm on the opposite side of fear--optimism. This is akin to a proof of concept with this mosquito species. It is likely the learnings will translate to other mosquito species. I have not stated I _want_ to eradicate this or the other species, merely that we theoretically _could_
- shkkmo 5y ago"Theoretically could" is practically useless without providing a reasonable route to actually happening. The US could theoretically nuke ever major city in Canada, bit that possibility is ingored for almost all practical purposes (and the purposes for which it is not ignored look at the reasons why it would happen.) Eliminating a species of mostuito is expensive and additional effort breeding and releasing mosquito's for each species you want to eliminate will always require additional work and effort. Why would we expend that effort to eliminate a species that doesn't bite us?
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoThe problem with this is that is non-consensual. People have a right to decide if genetically modified organisms will be flying around in their ecosystem.
- renewiltord 5y agoYou’re right, but people keep foisting their genetic chimeras on us in the name of “children” and stuff like that.
- kickout 5y agoNo more than they have a right to decide if a chemical is applied to a water aquifer or a pesticide is sprayed in a different locale and then drifts over. Direct democracy type approaches have never been a good (or even correct) model for these kinds of decisions. If it were, my community would prefer no synthetic chemicals come into contact with my local environment (plastics, textiles fabrics, herbicides, etc.)
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoAgreed. They don't have a right to pollute water sources with toxic chemicals.
- _zywo 5y agoWho's "people"? The state? A democratic vote? The individual? The problem with mosquito-borne diseases is that they're non-consensual. People have a right to live without mosquito-borne disease.
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoHuman beings who have lived in a state of nature. When there are medical cures to mosquito-borne diseases available, the patient can choose to take it or not take it. This foisting of treatments on people without their consent creates very dangerous precedents.
- 5y ago
- losvedir 5y agoI think that's the second fact. The first fact is that this species causes an immense amount of suffering and death to humans. Not considering this ongoing harm is status quo bias. I, too, think it's likely no ecological disaster will occur, but at the same time it's still possible. Nevertheless, from a cost-benefit perspective, for me it's a risk worth taking.
- fallingknife 5y ago
- mensetmanusman 5y agoBy this reasoning we should remove all safety laws.
- fallingknife 5y agoWhat reasoning? If safety laws were intended to reduce environmental damage, then, yes. But they clearly aren't.
- bee_rider 5y agoI think you will have to work pretty hard to pull many supporters to the 'pro-human-death' team. Most people, I think, are in favor of protecting the ecosystem implicitly because it makes the world a more pleasant place for us to live in. There's talk about not harming the planet for philosophical reasons but that's all window dressing. Humans work for humans.
- imtringued 5y agoParents compensate for child deaths by having more children. When those children don't die you end up with overpopulation. If parents know their children won't die they won't have more than three.
- moralestapia 5y ago>this species causes an immense amount of suffering and death to humans That's also humans, though.
- Someone 5y agoEven better, the niche can be refilled by the mosquitos that filled it before Aedes aegypti arrived in the new world (centuries ago, via slave trade).
- pvaldes 5y agoAnd the parasite knows that is not allowed to touch those mosquitos?
- sudosysgen 5y agoIIRC the parasite simply doesn't survive in those species.
- VoodooJuJu 5y ago>the ecological niche left by Aedes aegypti will be filled by other mosquito species, and no ecological disaster will occur. This cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty It can absolutely be claimed with an increasing degree of certainty, as it's being actively studied (e.g. this study).
- whimsicalism 5y agoWhat? That's not at all responsive to the GP.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> What? That's not at all responsive to the GP It's analogous. Mao decided to eliminate a problematic species. So he started eliminating it. Nationwide. Turned out, there were consequences to eliminating that species. Consequences that would have been obvious had he consulted with scientists. Or done a limited roll-out first. Things we're doing when weighing zapping these mosquitoes.
- hannob 5y agoAedes Aegypti isn't even a species that's native to the US. It's been brought there by humans. Even if you're convinced by arguments of naturalness (which I'm not), in this case it makes no sense, because you're not messing with nature, you're trying to return nature to a previous state before humans interfered.
- new_stranger 5y agoThat's the best-case scenario, the worse-case is that in trying to fix a problem we caused, we fail and end up with more problems. I mean, this isn't news to those of us that write code.
- gotaquestion 5y agoAnd you can fix code by recompiling; there's a tabula rasa built into the programming domain that isn't built into real life.
- wongarsu 5y agoEven if we succeed we can end up with more problems. Nature isn't math, if you add something, then remove it, you don't end up where you started. The ecosystem adapts to both changes separately and it's often hard to predict what will happen. Not that I would worry in this case.
- BurningFrog 5y agoThis is a universal argument for never doing anything. It "proves too much" in argument jargon.
- alwaysdoit 5y agoWhy do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spookthesunset 5y agoWhat ecological niche can mosquitoes possibly fill? Besides I guess being food for other critters…
- ansible 5y agoAdult mosquitos are an important food source for bats and birds. The larvae are important food for fish and other aquatic creatures.
- civilized 5y agoEven if you kill all species of mosquitoes that feed on humans, I doubt you have much of an impact on the ecosystem. There are still plenty that feed on other animals.