I'm not objecting. I think we should eradicate the mosquito. But as someone who has worked for the government (albeit a different branch) I know that bureaucrats are not being evil or heartless when they don't allocate funds for necessary work that falls outside of their mandate: they could go to jail for misallocation of taxpayer funds. So whose mandate is this?
Which bureaucrat has gone to jail for making any decision of this sort? The BLM sold ~1700 protected wild horses to a slaughterhouse a few years ago, and I don't think anyone was even reprimanded.[1] EPA allowed 11 million litres of contaminated, toxic wastewater to pollute the a river, and no disciplinary action was taken (that I know of), even though it seems this would be negligence (or a criminal offense) if a private party had done it.[2]
[1] http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/14/17708998-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_wate...
Horses were native to North America, and existed on the continent before humans arrived; they were probably wiped out by said humans. These 'giant ungulates' have much the same natural predators as bison and deer, which also happen to be 'giant ungulates', but whose presence I do not believe you would object to.
The "horses" you're talking about were a different species, they were much smaller, they disappeared 12,000 years ago, and their predators included Smilodon and dire wolves. Environmental conditions have changed since then. The feral horses I'm talking about descend from long-domesticated stock of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. They are larger and more robust than typical deer. They inhabit desert country that currently doesn't have gray wolves and has only a tiny population of cougars. These two are really the only predators that could take down feral horses on a consistent basis, and they don't control feral horse populations in these areas. The vegetation in these areas is continually degraded by the presence of feral horses, which harms many actually wild species. Bison are not a factor because these areas are too hot and arid.
My objections to feral horses are not philosophical. If they occupied a sustainable niche in these environments I'd be happy. That just isn't the case. For more information about the mustang as it currently exists, I recommend the movie Unbranded, currently on Netflix. That movie sets up some sort of fake conflict between feral horses on BLM land vs private cattle on that land. It's true that horses' dentition means a single horse damages plants more than a single cow does. It's also true that neither domesticated animal should be present on much of this sensitive wild desert land in anything close to their current numbers.
Bison have the same issues with overpopulation and overgrazing, and they're being allowed to roam outside of Yellowstone again soon, which is making people nervous. They're destructive, dangerous, and carry diseases transmissible to other cattle, and they've been underculled in recent years, so no one is sure what's going to happen.
So you hear things where the people are the bad guys, but that doesn't make the problems for people living around these animal populations go away. It's a common oversight by people from (sub)urban areas; because they live in world built by and for humans, they forget they're only a relatively few miles in any direction from unforgiving wilderness.
The proper solution is to encourage hunting. The idea of "deer season" is crazy; they should be hunted continuously. To the extent that it is safe, this should be allowed in suburban neighborhoods and city parks.
I wouldn't be too concerned about horses when deer are already a much much bigger problem.
You did say it goes unpunished but having charges filed is a step forward.
Thus, almost nothing is ever done.
Hence, you see epidemics of prosecutorial misconduct, for example. Prosecutors go after people they know (or reasonably suspect) to be innocent, withholding exculpatory evidence, etc., just to score the credit of more convictions. Such people ruining the lives of innocent people are almost never (and I really that - it approaches zero) prosecuted themselves.
you mean invasive wild horses, don't you ? the ones that were brought here by western conquistadors ?
The opposition to the Oxitec project spout the most depressing anti-science nonsense.
That's the spirit.
/s
Obviously this would be a major violation of the democratic process, but I feel like the utilitarian ends here justify the means. Should an individual have the power to take a global decision like this? Probably not, but this action is needed because the current GMO debate is so bogged down in unmovable, politically entrenched positions.
The environmental and social justice NGOs who campaign against this technology may be doing the world one of the greatest environmental dis-services we’ve ever seen. Biology is the ultimate sustainable technology, it’s crazy that environmental groups are opposing it’s use so strongly.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601213/the-extinction-inv...
> Preventing disease, including immunization services
This seems to fall under that. xD
Here's a list[1].
Fuck the mosquito.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine
For example look at the phenomena of keystone species. If you remove starfish from a beach, the mussels will take over and the rest of the tidepool animals get wiped out. The reason is that the starfish prefer eating mussels and so maintain a balance. Unless you really know the ecosystem, it is hard to tell what is a keystone species that completely changes things.
An introduced species is easier. Unless it is in the same ecological niche as a native, there is no possibility that it is a necessary part of the balance.
Unfortunately, mosquitoes are likely to have a significant ecological role. They have preferred targets. Their role as a disease vector affects what population density those targets can have. Wipe out the mosquitoes, and you don't know what will happen to that ecosystem.
That said, I've been bitten by enough mosquitoes that I'm willing to risk it...
The methods discussed in the article can be targeted on a per species basis. The action could be limited to mosquito species that prefer to target humans.
(the sterile male method is already being used)
But to explain a bit of the reasoning, as I understand it, invasive species are considered harmful to ecosystems because they tend to throw them out of equilibrium. If you introduce something to an environment with no natural predators or other environment feedback loops to constrain population growth, the newly introduced species has a field day, for a bit, until it kills off whatever it feeds on. Since ecosystems are inherently deeply interconnected things, the boom-bust cycle causes all sorts of problems.
Now maybe a new equilibrium is eventually "better" than it was before, but that, I think, is the real arbitrary human value judgment. Observing that introducing a new species throws existing systems out of whack isn't a value judgement - it accurately describes what happens.
If I'm understanding your comment about the rate of change, I think you're talking about drift between equilibria.
Asking about "too fast" is where the human value judgement comes in. Which isn't invalid, it is just human-centric and far from the whole picture. Stating that introducing an invasive species can destroy the existing ecosystem is a statement of fact without judgement. It is just an observation of reality.
Typically zoologists, botanists, and other biologists who study local ecosystems and determine the damage done by invasive species.
Construing this as a human concept doesn't make it arbitrary - anthropogenic impact on the environment is important because we rely on our environment for survival as a species. Damage isn't limited to just a less biological diversity, it can and has stretched into agriculture and human production.
And back on topic - Kill 'em all - native, invasive, makes no difference. As I read the expert concensus, after eradication the likelihood of some edge case eco-dependency being revealed should be vanishingly small, whereas the status quo allows millions of homo sapiens to be sickened and or killed.
That seems like easy math to me.
NB: I'm a Southerner (Peach state) so I'll admit I carry a strong, but well earned, hatred of the vile creatures.
Claiming that mass extinction of all mosquitoes from the ecosystem is a bullet the environment can take is another matter.
To your second point: eliminating all blood-feeding mosquitoes is the most radical proposal I've ever encountered, and this is a small subset of all mosquitoes (itself a small subset of Culicidae). I've never seen it compellingly demonstrated that these mosquitoes have an irreplacable role in any ecosystem, but there's much we don't grasp that an incremental and cautious approach seems wise.
Ecosystem-wise, let's not forget mosquitoes and their diseases are as much threat as they are content. Hawaii didn't have mosquitoes until the 19th century, they did a number on native bird populations. Mosquitoes negatively affect any species they feed on, not just humans.
Countless animals rely on mosquitoes as a valuable food source. And before someone brings up the tired "mosquito predators all eat things besides mosquitoes" argument, people eat food besides grains. It doesn't mean we wouldn't still be 100% fucked if rice and wheat went extinct overnight.
Edit: well, I read that article poorly. Sorry!
A summary would be releasing sterile males and gene drives.
I place more value on the well being of humanity than I do on that of the rest of the world. In general, I value the well being of the world as a whole, but mostly because it's beneficial to humanity. If we eliminate ourselves, there can be no benefit to humanity--so no, I am not up for that as well.
In this specific case, I don't place any intrinsic value in the life of a mosquito. To me, the only factor in whether it lives or dies should be how much harm or benefit it brings to humanity.
And Hitler didn't place any intrinsic value in the life of a Jew.
I just don't think it's ok to eliminate a species. Intentional extinction of any species is not ok with me, even if it is a mosquito.
Other than that reply, I'm going to ignore your Hitler comment.
How much intrinsic value do you place on the life of a mosquito? Would you die to save all mosquitoes? To save half of all mosquitoes? A million mosquitoes? What would you sacrifice to save the life of 1 mosquito?
>I just don't think it's ok to eliminate a species. Intentional extinction of any species is not ok with me, even if it is a mosquito.
Do you value humans more than mosquitoes? Would you eliminate mosquitoes if it meant saving the human race? What if it meant saving half the human race? Saving a billion people? A few million a year?
How about viruses? Do you think we should reintroduce smallpox to the wild?
Maybe you don't consider viruses to be truly alive, so how about bacteria? Are you opposed to eliminating the bacteria that causes anthrax?
How about a more complex lifeform? What are your thoughts on eliminating malaria parasites?
/s
The GP may well have done so, but most extreme proposals are to eliminate parts of the genuses Aedes, Anopholes, and Culex - together about 2% of the genetic diversity of the family Culicidae.
>Countless animals rely on mosquitoes as a valuable food source.
I'd be interested in seeing some concrete evidence that this is true; I've looked unsuccessfully. Seems to me that there are a few hyperspecialized predators, but generally mosquito population dynamics are too unpredictable for this to arise.
I found that amusing, and carried on in kind.
For example, one of the popular techniques is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes that are sterile. The problem is we don't know what could happen if/when these modified genes spread into the wider environment
It's a very serious concern, whether or not eradicating mosquitoes will introduce more severe problems
(Genuine question! I don't know what the risk is)
I think the better option (also in the article) is to release engineered males that result on male only offspring. Eventually you run out of females and the species dies off.
This is a double win, since male mosquitos don't bite animals.
The problem is we don't know what happens after/when we introduce those genes into the environment. Humans are spreading the gene by releasing the modified mosquitoes - not them having offspring.
Of course that could also happen in the wild with some good 'ol cosmic rays and no human intervention.
Pickup by virus or other microorganism. Transposons.
Citation needed.
I don't know how this will be received. I don't even know how I feel about it. But someone has to ask the tough questions.
Is it evolutionarily prudent to go about saving people who can't save themselves?
our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one.
I don't think that is our "current solution," the lives of many of the world's "poor" have gotten immeasurably better, health and material wise, since contact with Europeans.
Prior to outside contact sub-Saharan Africans didn't have the wheel, written language, a calendar, buildings greater than 1-story, any mechanical devices, domesticated animals, ...
Efforts against malaria, and for clean water are ongoing. Iodised salt does wonders. The list goes on... I don't know how you got in your mind your "current solution."
The question you should be asking is how we can accept that so many people are unable to save themselves because of actions we (developed world) have taken. Both recently and in the past.
The developed world (mainly western) has inflicted some atrocities on the other parts but that is not what you trying to picture here. There were countless examples of even the tauted-to-be-benevolent tribal people (e.g. African) attacking and trying to wipe out other tribes throughout the world history.
Alas, currently it has become fashionable to put the entire blame on developed western world. This is propaganda (the one that Marxists and communists also love to spread).
I am not a westerner but I do acknowledge many great deeds done by the westerners in the other parts of the world. Internet, electricity, railways, trucks, roads, aeroplanes, mobile-phones, project Gutenberg, concrete, internet archive, Wikipedia, better agriculture practices, agro machines: take your pick. Also add to that the recent initiatives like MIT OCW.
These things which the western world has given to the entire world there is no parallel such benevolent behaviour in the human history. I am grateful to the developed world for such acts of courage and rising above one's own good and one's own religious sentiments.
I am an Asian, and I do know how mean and malevolent our own people had been and have been even now. Countless massacres and oppressive practices by the Islamists and communists and other tribes and groups.
Personally for me, the projects like Internet, internet archive, Wikipedia and OCW have been so beneficial that I cannot imagine myself educating me without them at such a low cost.
BTW, evolution is a complex phenomena but social structures are also important in overall progress of the society. The western developed societal structure is the best societal structure as of yet.
W.r.t. this it is no wonder, for many people here (including me), the western world seems like heaven.
Why in the world would you think that? We're still made of genes aren't we? We still sexually reproduce don't we?
because of actions we (developed world) have taken
Stark differences existed between the continents long before colonisation. Stark differences exist in areas that were never colonised.
Some areas that were colonised are now thriving.
As much as we like to flatter ourselves, we are not the cause of all the world's problems.
Nor is the constant haranguing of people who have nothing to do with events decades and centuries past of benefit to anybody.
Let's consider biology. Physics and chemistry constrain biological processes and systems, for sure. But the number of distinct proteins based on the same set of amino acids, for example, is arguably unlimited (or at least, huge). Selection may favor one protein over another, and yet have virtually no impact on amino acid structure and diversity. Let alone on atoms, nucleons, quarks, etc.
The same applies to societies and cultures vs peoples.
Physics is just emergent properties of ... (math?). Chemistry is just emergent properties of physics. Biology is just emergent properties of chemistry.
It's turtles, all the way.
There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem, but our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratitis_capitata
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrepha_ludens