3 ms·

I live in a mosquito infested area and I have had malaria. Personally, I would love to see the end of all mosquitoes, even if it meant losing a few fish species

by NIL8 12y ago

I live in a mosquito infested area and I have had malaria. Personally, I would love to see the end of all mosquitoes, even if it meant losing a few fish species. However, even with an incredible amount of research and preparation, eliminating mosquitoes would have an untold number of effects. One effect would most certainly be the exponential growth of the human population. This could be a more difficult pest than mosquitoes.

derekp7 12y ago
This is actually addressed in the article. If people are reasonably certain that all their children will survive to adulthood, they tend to have fewer children.
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  Supply and demand, I guess. A higher survival rate is going to mean more competition for resources. Increased competition yields higher prices. Higher prices usually mean parents decide to have less kids. Of course, I think industrialization plays a huge role too. If you have a family in an agrarian third world country, then more kids equal more labor, and as long as that kid is healthy and productive, having him is a net positive for income.
  - im3w1l 12y ago
    But there are less children, less teenagers, less everything, so your hypothesis doesn't hold water. Let me put forth another hypothesis. Lower mortality means investing in your children has a lower risk. This means you can invest more in your children. Further, lower mortality means lower risk that all your children die, so you don't need to get lots of children for "diversification".
    - MisterBastahrd 12y ago
      I don't think you understand how population growth works.
Steuard 12y ago
Someone else has already commented that populations have tended to stabilize quite quickly when childhood mortality drops. Worries about exponential growth always seem to fizzle out within a generation. So I don't think this is a practical concern. But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling. No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale. I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.
Houshalter 12y ago
Killing children with malaria doesn't seem like an acceptable method of population control.

by NIL8 12y ago

derekp7 12y ago

This is actually addressed in the article. If people are reasonably certain that all their children will survive to adulthood, they tend to have fewer children.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago
Supply and demand, I guess. A higher survival rate is going to mean more competition for resources. Increased competition yields higher prices. Higher prices usually mean parents decide to have less kids. Of course, I think industrialization plays a huge role too. If you have a family in an agrarian third world country, then more kids equal more labor, and as long as that kid is healthy and productive, having him is a net positive for income.
- im3w1l 12y ago
  But there are less children, less teenagers, less everything, so your hypothesis doesn't hold water. Let me put forth another hypothesis. Lower mortality means investing in your children has a lower risk. This means you can invest more in your children. Further, lower mortality means lower risk that all your children die, so you don't need to get lots of children for "diversification".
  - MisterBastahrd 12y ago
    I don't think you understand how population growth works.

Steuard 12y ago

Someone else has already commented that populations have tended to stabilize quite quickly when childhood mortality drops. Worries about exponential growth always seem to fizzle out within a generation. So I don't think this is a practical concern. But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling. No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale. I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.

Houshalter 12y ago

Killing children with malaria doesn't seem like an acceptable method of population control.