2 ms·

In May, the rains returned, and so did the mosquitoes. And, lo, a fifth of them were full of deuterium. They had, in other words, been aestivating. The next st

In May, the rains returned, and so did the mosquitoes. And, lo, a fifth of them were full of deuterium. They had, in other words, been aestivating. The next step is therefore to find out just where the insects were holing up while the rains were gone. If these shelters can be identified, they can be attacked. Alternatively, special efforts might be made to ambush the aestivators as they wake up, by extensive insecticide-spraying campaigns at the beginning of the rainy season. Either or both of these could put a significant dent in local mosquito populations—which would, in turn, make malaria less of a problem. Killing mozzies to rid us of their pathogens is worse than attacking the pathogens themselves, because: 1) let's not kill these little lives unnecessarily and 2) we risk upsetting the ecosystem that we can neither understand nor repair if we damage it. Let's have vaccines for malaria, or "cure" mosquitos of malaria. Let's improve doxycycline so it doesn't stain your teeth but is still a good prophylaxis. Let's genetically modify humans (with a virus) so we have innate immunity to malaria, and the various "river fever" diseases that are mozzie-borne. I just think attacking the pathogens is a much safer bet than attacking their vectors via ecosystem-engineering. Our ecosystems are getting hammered enough, we can't risk further upsetting their delicate balances. It's sort of like saying "Let's eradicate heavy metal poisoning by killing all fish stocks and draining the oceans", a sickening, hard-to-undo ridiculously mistaken strategy.

chasil 4y ago
Unfortunately, Florida already targets mosquito populations with several techniques towards the goal of driving them to vastly reduced numbers. A gene drive has been deployed in the Keys, as I understand it. I don't know if the objective was extinction or not. Humans are going to impact their environment, and it's not productive to deny that this is going to happen. Smallpox was driven extinct, and many would like to do the same to dangerous mosquitos. I can't judge the morality, but it will likely happen all the same.
- Metacelsus 4y ago
  >A gene drive has been deployed in the Keys The Oxitec mosquitoes aren't gene-drive, but genetically engineered to be sterile. (This is different from a gene drive, for a true gene drive see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24790-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24790-6 )
mullingitover 4y ago
> Killing mozzies to rid us of their pathogens is worse than attacking the pathogens themselves, because: 1) let's not kill these little lives unnecessarily and 2) we risk upsetting the ecosystem that we can neither understand nor repair if we damage it. 1) Mosquitoes carry more than just malaria, and trying to cure them of every pathogen is a crazy game of whack-a-mole. Even disease-free they are a major pest. 2) Research has been performed to determine if mosquitoes are a keystone species and has found that they are not. We have the tools at our disposal to eliminate the species that has killed more people than all the wars in human history combined. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would hem and haw about the consequences of this non-keystone species when plenty of other species are driven to extinction every year without any fanfare.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Keystone species...I don't know. But what if they are vital in ways we can't measure right now? Our blindspots. Pest is not enough to go f**ing with it. Mosquitos help humans develop and transfer immunity to each other against many things, I think and I have a really strong sense we shouldn't be wiping them out.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    > Keystone species...I don't know. But what if they are vital in ways we can't measure right now? Our blindspots. What number of deaths are you okay with causing while we delay the eradication of the species to assuage this general bad feeling you have about it?
    - graderjs 4y ago
      Many, it seems. But not as many as may be saved by doing something different
naravara 4y ago
My impression is that mosquitoes seem to thrive best in degraded ecosystems where there aren't enough birds and fish and other small insects to snack on them and keep the population low. But even then, they're so small that I don't think they provide enough calories to larger animals. As far as I know the only insects for whom mosquitoes are actually a worthwhile food source are other mosquitoes (the non-annoying ones that drink nectar like to eat the kinds that suck blood). So there may be a consequence in terms of being able to pollinate certain plants. But it's also likely the niche would be filled by other insects, though maybe that wouldn't be any less desirable.

chasil 4y ago

Unfortunately, Florida already targets mosquito populations with several techniques towards the goal of driving them to vastly reduced numbers. A gene drive has been deployed in the Keys, as I understand it. I don't know if the objective was extinction or not. Humans are going to impact their environment, and it's not productive to deny that this is going to happen. Smallpox was driven extinct, and many would like to do the same to dangerous mosquitos. I can't judge the morality, but it will likely happen all the same.

Metacelsus 4y ago
>A gene drive has been deployed in the Keys The Oxitec mosquitoes aren't gene-drive, but genetically engineered to be sterile. (This is different from a gene drive, for a true gene drive see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24790-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24790-6 )

mullingitover 4y ago

> Killing mozzies to rid us of their pathogens is worse than attacking the pathogens themselves, because: 1) let's not kill these little lives unnecessarily and 2) we risk upsetting the ecosystem that we can neither understand nor repair if we damage it. 1) Mosquitoes carry more than just malaria, and trying to cure them of every pathogen is a crazy game of whack-a-mole. Even disease-free they are a major pest. 2) Research has been performed to determine if mosquitoes are a keystone species and has found that they are not. We have the tools at our disposal to eliminate the species that has killed more people than all the wars in human history combined. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would hem and haw about the consequences of this non-keystone species when plenty of other species are driven to extinction every year without any fanfare.

graderjs 4y ago
Keystone species...I don't know. But what if they are vital in ways we can't measure right now? Our blindspots. Pest is not enough to go f**ing with it. Mosquitos help humans develop and transfer immunity to each other against many things, I think and I have a really strong sense we shouldn't be wiping them out.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  > Keystone species...I don't know. But what if they are vital in ways we can't measure right now? Our blindspots. What number of deaths are you okay with causing while we delay the eradication of the species to assuage this general bad feeling you have about it?
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Many, it seems. But not as many as may be saved by doing something different

naravara 4y ago

My impression is that mosquitoes seem to thrive best in degraded ecosystems where there aren't enough birds and fish and other small insects to snack on them and keep the population low. But even then, they're so small that I don't think they provide enough calories to larger animals. As far as I know the only insects for whom mosquitoes are actually a worthwhile food source are other mosquitoes (the non-annoying ones that drink nectar like to eat the kinds that suck blood). So there may be a consequence in terms of being able to pollinate certain plants. But it's also likely the niche would be filled by other insects, though maybe that wouldn't be any less desirable.