Even if you're convinced by arguments of naturalness (which I'm not), in this case it makes no sense, because you're not messing with nature, you're trying to return nature to a previous state before humans interfered.
"Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men. Pick up a rifle and follow the yellow line. You'll know when the test starts."
I mean, this isn't news to those of us that write code.
Not that I would worry in this case.
It "proves too much" in argument jargon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species#Favorable_e...
It appears that a "gene drive" was introduced into the Florida Keys in this case, and that is much more targeted and specific to a species that it is intended to destroy.
Ever read on the idea that most megafauna was hunted down by men?
Yeah... that seems pretty erhm, "unnatural", therefore the entire rest of the world is "unnatural"
Supposedly the tsetse fly was local to a very small area of Africa, yet during the 1700 and 1800 during colonialism it spread onto the rest of the continent, before that the continent was quite settled with larger farm fields in respective areas, but the tzetze fly disrupted all that
Anyhow just wanted to say that "nature" and "natural" once one starts digging more are not really "useful" descriptions, because the world is complex and not an idealized scenario
Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems?
I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a huge claim like that?
We (humans) are constantly interfering with ecosystems, including wiping out species. However for some reason every single time there is a post about getting rid of this mosquito species there are comments super worried about the ecological impact. I wager the deforestation taking place in Amazon will have a much larger impact than the absence of this species of mosquito
That might be true but that's also not a reason to deliberately change ecosystems elsewhere.
The issue with mosquitos essentially comes down to risk management. The question is can we intentionally remove a mosquito species from the ecosystem while limiting adverse side affects. Deforestation of the amazon isn't relevant.
I wouldn't bet it has any bad effects though.
I hope you mean not relevant to the discussion or topic, because deforestation of the Amazon is very relevant to the planet.
I love nature more than most I know, but if there is evil on this earth, it's the mosquito.
Here's one example. The woodpecker. Around here, its numbers swell when trees have pests under the bark.
But soon, after a few years, they eat most of the grubs, and must find other food. They do. By pecking in the dirt, for bettle grubs, and worms, and so on.
I'm sure their population will diminish, until more tree grubs appear. I'm OK with that.
And frankly, if we kill all mosquitoes and noseeums, some things will starve out, some will adapt.
But I hate mosquitoes so much, they kill so many, I am OK with some birds vanishing.
I literally, like some general sending men to die in a push, am OK with that
Die, mosquitoes. Die to extinction. Die regardless of the price, the cost.
Die, even if they cause lateral gene exchange, and their extinction means we wither, and die too.
Die mosquitoes.
Die.
Smite them, and my sword arm is yours to command.
It is mildly withered with age, but can still poke at many things.
When our AI overlord emerges, you will be known to it.
The problem is that you are grossly mistaken in which is worse. It's the latter. Whether you do it out of purpose, accident, negligence, or apathy, the consequences don't care about your intent.
[1] Which is something we are constantly doing, all around the world, not just in the Amazon.
We've got concrete examples of getting rid of some species with near-zero consequences, like the guinea worm.
As long as the macro-ecological systems we rely on continue to interface with us in mostly the same way we make the compromise that we are aware enough of the side effects. It's easier to take this perspective with disease carrying mosquitos because of the sheer quantity of human suffering and death they cause.
But this view does have pitfalls, like how we initially missed the collapse of pollinator species that we depend on, or the risks we take with genetically cloned fruit like Cavendish bananas which are a single pathogen away from being wiped out.
Actually, I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history. Perhaps I dont get out much.
Is this true? I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic here, but if that is a defensible claim I want to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria....
Take a look at the coastline of Long Island on satellite maps, and all the scars left by that time they tried to eliminate all of the salt marshes to get rid of mosquitoes near NYC.
Government?
Let's take a step back.
What makes you think human lives are worthier than mosquito lives?
It's actually "that's just, like, your opinion, man".
Wow. Just, wow. I hope you realize that that's a dangerous line of thinking.
But then again it's not very surprising. Historically humans don't have a good track record of preserving the lives of other humans (in other lands). Let alone other creatures.
Also your statement isn't even really true. The reason those mosquitoes are targeted is because nature inadvertently came up with diseases that eliminate humans.
Yet I'm not entirely sure that's a justification for eradicating a sub-species of mosquitoes.
Just something to think about.
In disaster movies, yes, they say that all the time. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Reality and methodical science are a bit more nuanced.
People have studied this for a long time and reached the conclusion that no ecological disaster is likely to occur.
We can never be 100% sure of anything, of course. But we can make informed decisions.
I, too, think it's likely no ecological disaster will occur, but at the same time it's still possible. Nevertheless, from a cost-benefit perspective, for me it's a risk worth taking.
Most people, I think, are in favor of protecting the ecosystem implicitly because it makes the world a more pleasant place for us to live in. There's talk about not harming the planet for philosophical reasons but that's all window dressing. Humans work for humans.
That's also humans, though.
I can’t ever take those people seriously, vs people who see it as humanity’s role to be good stewards of the earth and operate in balance with it.
People just like being edgy, best to give them no mind.
Killing an entire species to save a few humans. Being concerned about the ecological disaster when we are the worst ecological disaster. Those are pretty hypocritical viewpoints although common and completely normal with the constraints of normal human behavior.
The only reason you are so callous is because you imagine those dying as others, not you, your neighbors or loved ones.
Not going to keep replying, because I know you don't really believe these things when push comes to shove.
Also It’s not as black and white as you’re painting it. I happen to see it both ways and side humans too because, why not? I am not team mosquito. (I think you’re mistaking me for someone debating with you, I just jumped in the thread to say I see there point, doesn’t mean I agree with it and it doesn’t mean they lack empathy. There is this thing called dark humor and it’s possible to hold that alternate view as a point of humor.) Also not returning to comment.
The vast majority of mosquito species don't bite humans, so there's zero reason to do so.
Why would you state that? That is explicitly not the goal of this effort and there is no justification for taking that approach. It sounds like fear mongering.
Eliminating a species of mostuito is expensive and additional effort breeding and releasing mosquito's for each species you want to eliminate will always require additional work and effort. Why would we expend that effort to eliminate a species that doesn't bite us?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mosquito+genetic+engine...
That would be a huge, irreversible, and catastrophic mistake.
In the top list of most stupid things done by humans just to piss on the environmental sciences.
Besides I guess being food for other critters…
The problem with mosquito-borne diseases is that they're non-consensual. People have a right to live without mosquito-borne disease.
Why do you care? Nature is 'genetically modifying' stuff all the time. That's how you exist.
They won't have superpowers or grow to Godzilla proportions. They are just different. Think of them as a different mosquito species.
I can't recall signing a form allowing nature to fly mosquitos past me.
Because fixing it later is really expensive. Ask the cane toad fans
If it were, my community would prefer no synthetic chemicals come into contact with my local environment (plastics, textiles fabrics, herbicides, etc.)
This cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
It can absolutely be claimed with an increasing degree of certainty, as it's being actively studied (e.g. this study).
Note the wording ”being”. We can actually conclude results in 10 years when we might generally agree some information. It takes time.
It's analogous. Mao decided to eliminate a problematic species. So he started eliminating it. Nationwide. Turned out, there were consequences to eliminating that species. Consequences that would have been obvious had he consulted with scientists. Or done a limited roll-out first. Things we're doing when weighing zapping these mosquitoes.
I do. I think the comment is a generic "but unforeseen consequences" response. The target mosquito could have some unique ecological role the other 799 can't fill that only becomes apparent ex post facto.
That's why we're conducting limited tests. To look for those. Something Mao didn't do.
There are ~800 mosquito species. This is about removing 1 of them which can and do carry diseases that kill people.
If this is successful, the ecological niche left by Aedes aegypti will be filled by other mosquito species, and no ecological disaster will occur.