>I think it’s precisely this level of hubris toward biology and the natural world which has led humanity to the state we are in.

You mean this awesome state where most of our children don't die before reaching adulthood?

You should really read a history book about how horrible life was before the dawn of modern industrial civilization. Our ancestors declared war on nature for a good reason and made our lives unimaginably better this way.

> Any loss of biodiversity is a tragedy.

I bet Africans disagree. Mosquitoes have killed more humans than all wars combined. Bill Gates and company are currently trying to wipe them out to save the lives of countless millions in Africa. I am pretty sure they won't miss the "biodiversity" which keeps killing them and the people they love.

By the way, the US used to have regions plagued by mosquitos and malaria too. The parasites were systematically exterminated through chemical warfare (DDT). Do you think e.g. Florida would be a better place with malaria? With hundreds of thousands of people being killed by it every year? I don't. And I am not ashamed of this "level of hubris".

> Once these genetics are lost, they are gone forever.

Not all genes are worth preserving e.g. the ones for horrible heritable diseases.

Also what you wrote is not really true, all life, all the biodiversity on earth evolved from the same archaic cells. So "gone forever" is too optimistic / pessimistic.

I don't think he disagrees with the fact that parasites cause extreme suffering, nor that ending this suffering is a good thing.

Rather, I think his point is that there's a hidden cost to the loss of biodiversity that ridding the world of parasites entails. Moreover, his point is that ethical analyses (such as the one you present) tend to minimize the extreme complexity of biological systems, and that therefore the conclusions of such analyses should be viewed suspiciously.

Most biological systems are complex adaptive systems and handle changes quite well. Killing off a few species of mosquitoes or parasites that only live in humans, is unlikely to upset any ecosystem in a major way. Plowing up all of the native grass land in the American Mid-West to grow corn or cutting down the Amazon rain forest to grow soybeans; these are the large scale wholesale destruction of the environment that people should be concerned about.

That reads like a statement of faith. Show me the data.

I have a hunch that by shunting blood between different creatures, mosquitos and similar “parasites” may have -once- played a crucial role in the evolution of many species.

Whether that role is necessary now or not, we cannot know for certain. Of course though, we can and should limit their ability to cause “suffering.”

Imagine us killing all bees to extinction because their stings hurt, then realizing that they were necessary for many plants.

Mosquito's don't shunt blood between different creatures. Mosquito-transmitted diseases are transmitted via the mosquito's anticoagulant saliva or their poop. Mosquito-transmitted parasites must also be able to reproduce inside the mosquito and many go through one or more stages of their life cycle inside it.

This is why you can get malaria from a mosquito but not AIDS.

Ah I’ve always been under the impression that the blood they drank “leaked” and mixed as they went around biting different creatures.

>I think it’s precisely this level of hubris toward biology and the natural world which has led humanity to the state we are in

Where billions are living longer, healthier, more peaceful, productive, less deceased lives than anybody though possible 100 years ago? Where we are on the tresshold of the possibility of maybe eliminating extreme poverty?

Yeah, lets try to save a few strains of DNA.