3 ms·

What is so frustrating is that the malaria problem has all but been solved. I have read on multiple occasions about our ability to breed genetically modified mi

What is so frustrating is that the malaria problem has all but been solved. I have read on multiple occasions about our ability to breed genetically modified misquotes that can be used to decimate mosquito populations on the one hand and on the other create malaria immune mosquitoes that stop the transmission of the disease. So why hasn't it been done? Short answer: bullshit "unknowns" about long-term ecological effects. Well try explaining that to the 12 children who just died from malaria while I wrote this comment.

algorias 13y ago
You can't pivot your way out of ecological catastrophes, you know... There are many instances of "innocent" actions of mankind that ravaged huge areas of the world very rapidly (the beaver plague in south america, just off the top of my head). Ecosystems often find themselves in very delicate states of equilibrium, an equilibrium that can be irreversably broken with the slightest missstep. There are very good reasons to be extremely conservative in this area.
- s_baby 13y ago
  Considering more than half of all humans ever have died from Malaria it's a reasonable risk to take.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Source? I find that very hard to believe. For starters, not nearly all humans do or have lived in places where malaria is particularly widespread. Secondly, while deaths from malaria are high in developing countries, according to WHO it still "only" accounted for 4.4% of deaths in low income countries in 2002. While the percentage of Malaria deaths has undoubtably dropped substantially as the fight against Malaria has intensified, the drop in recent decades do not seem to justify that the worldwide deaths causes by Malaria has at any point been so far above 50% to compensate for lower rates later and for the parts of the world where Malaria either is not endemic or not widespread enough to cause significant deaths.

algorias 13y ago

You can't pivot your way out of ecological catastrophes, you know... There are many instances of "innocent" actions of mankind that ravaged huge areas of the world very rapidly (the beaver plague in south america, just off the top of my head). Ecosystems often find themselves in very delicate states of equilibrium, an equilibrium that can be irreversably broken with the slightest missstep. There are very good reasons to be extremely conservative in this area.

s_baby 13y ago
Considering more than half of all humans ever have died from Malaria it's a reasonable risk to take.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Source? I find that very hard to believe. For starters, not nearly all humans do or have lived in places where malaria is particularly widespread. Secondly, while deaths from malaria are high in developing countries, according to WHO it still "only" accounted for 4.4% of deaths in low income countries in 2002. While the percentage of Malaria deaths has undoubtably dropped substantially as the fight against Malaria has intensified, the drop in recent decades do not seem to justify that the worldwide deaths causes by Malaria has at any point been so far above 50% to compensate for lower rates later and for the parts of the world where Malaria either is not endemic or not widespread enough to cause significant deaths.