But eradicating mosquitoes is a bad idea. My hunch is that in most cases, they act as genetic pollinators, incremental vaccinators carrying the latest news of disease so that animals can react.
The issue is not about land area, it's about fauna biomass location. Think more like this:
https://static6.businessinsider.com/image/582c7dd8ba6eb69a01...
On the vaccination issue, I encourage you to look up Jenner and his realization of the link between cowpox and smallpox. It's a good foundation for GP's idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner#Invention_of_the...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/
I'm not certain of mosquito-per-fauna-biomass distributions, nor GP's thesis, but it's not a bad one overall and may have merit.
If people in arid land can live healthy without mosquitoes, I think it's a good bet that people in wetter land can too.
"You literally had to run from your car to the house" isn't how you would like to live for the entirety of your life. Of course I don't have high hopes for Californians to understand this.
Tbe bottom line of the article is:
> I’m not going to kid you. It’s excellent now that the mosquitoes are gone. We don’t regret making that big effort.