Which is likely to cause more ecological damgage:
1) Wipe out two (of over 3,500) species of mosquito
2) Spray poisons indiscriminately, wiping out many different species of insect, both mosquitos and non-mosquitos?
Also interesting, I thought Intellectual Ventures was only a patent troll, I didn't know they did actual research work as well.
The link-bait title is wrong. No one is seriously talking about eliminating all mosquitos. There's discussion of eliminating two (two) of the over 3,500 species of mosquito, specifically those that carry horrible human diseases.
Maybe you should try reading the article, rather than just the title?
edit: http://www.chron.com/life/gardening/article/Dragonflies-Moth...
Their impact as a food source would be negligible.
Before they were introduced by sailing ships, its not like the bug-eating animals did not have enough bugs to eat.
There’s little evidence, though, that mosquitoes form a crucial link in any food chain, or that their niche could not be filled by something else.We wipe species off the face of the earth regularly for as little benefit as increasing the land available for soy farming in the Amazon; averting a holocaust per decade seems like a no-brainer when measured on that scale.
Duh.
Remember human population fertility control effort performed by the US under cover of humanitarian aid in Central Africa less than 30 years ago?
The real question is how certain do we have to be about their role before we decide the gamble is worth it?
In this thread you see wealthy westerners complaining that mosquitos are a nuisance. In many parts of the world they are holocaust-scale killers. It gets to an age old question re: the precautionary principle, and a lot of philosophers have spent a lot of time reasoning about it. No one has a generalizable answer.