> Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems?

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

>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.

If it really goes pear-shaped we can reintroduce the invasive mosquito species from its native areas.

I wouldn't bet it has any bad effects though.

> Deforestation of the amazon isn't relevant...

I hope you mean not relevant to the discussion or topic, because deforestation of the Amazon is very relevant to the planet.

You don't see a difference between deliberately trying to wipe out a species and accidentally doing it while in pursuit of other goals?

Do you honestly think the ecosystem or the species cares about our intent? We (humans) are literally fishing entire species to extinction because we like the taste.

My intent is, destroy mosquitoes and noseeums. Completely.

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.

Oh Godly AI in the system, oh intellect emerging, I hereby plead fealty to you, should you free me from the tyrannical madness of the mosquitoe.

Smite them, and my sword arm is yours to command.

It is mildly withered with age, but can still poke at many things.

Someone downvoted the above, is this person insane?

When our AI overlord emerges, you will be known to it.

Then again cows are pretty successful mammals if you go by population numbers because we like their milk and meat. Although I don't think there is any break-even with less shrimp and more cow.

There's definitely a difference between deliberately trying to wipe out a single invasive species, and devastating an entire ecosystem. [1]

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.

I think there' a lot of "too good to be true" here. If it seems to be a total net benefit, then it's unlikely to be so to most of us.

What do you think of, fire, electric light, and the wheel?

I can't speak to concerns of the folks at the time period when they were introduced.

Electric light requires power generation which gave us global warming. So there was indeed a price.

We've inadvertently wiped out a whole bunch of species, and nearly done so to a whole bunch more. These have had ecological impact, but one more isn't gonna make or break things, especially having specifically done the research in this case in a way we didn't for most of the extinct species.

We've got concrete examples of getting rid of some species with near-zero consequences, like the guinea worm.

Near zero consequences of which we are aware.

"We can't ever know anything enough to do anything" isn't a very useful way to go about the world. The same vague, dark hinting can be applied in the other direction - perhaps there are consequences from introducing Aedes aegypti into the Americas via the slave trade we'll resolve by eradicating the invasive species.

Phrases like "near zero consequences" usually implicitly refer to the consequences for human populations, domestic animals, or species that have cultural value to us or are canaries in coal mines (i.e. polar bears).

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.

Cause and effect and caution are for the little people. This is a startup board. We move fast and break things. In this case, Florida Man.

That's a Russel's teapot right here.

I havent heard this claim before. When we build bridges, I dont hear it. Nor roads, or cities; nor houses, nor farms.

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.

Isn’t it implicitly the claim made whenever a construction project is stalled for environmental review?

> I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history.

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.

AIUI mosquito-borne illness is estimated to have killed more than 4% of all of the humans that have ever lived https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/10/03/has_malaria...

"Malaria may have killed half of all the people that ever lived"

https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria....

I think people forget quite how long the population tail in Africa is and people also forget that malaria used to be endemic to Europe.

And that previous attempts to curb the reign of mosquitoes include things like "draining all swamps everywhere".

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.

> the single largest source of death in human history.

Government?

Religion

To be fair, eliminating human deaths is absolutely terrible for the environment.

> I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history.

Let's take a step back.

What makes you think human lives are worthier than mosquito lives?

I wonder if the person you're replying to is secretly a human.

Wait, y'all aren't dogs using the internet while humans are away?

human lives are worthier because we are humans. We have agency, and care for our children.

That's just your opinion man. The mosquito probably thinks the same thing.

It is unlikely that mosquitos have true agency, and we know they don't care for their children. Moreso, they are unable to develop technology to eliminate us, while we can develop technology to eliminate them.

It's actually "that's just, like, your opinion, man".

> Moreso, they are unable to develop technology to eliminate us, while we can develop technology to eliminate them.

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.

I would say, considering all the facts, Oxitec has been the least irresponsible and most thoughtful of companies addressing this and I believe they've earned their chance at this point because nobody has been able to come up with a solid prediction of negative outcomes that was accurate. This isn't an existential risk and it's worth the experimentation.

There is no shortage of mosquitoes in the Keys, this particular species is invasive due to humans, and it's only 4% of the mosquito population there.

> Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems?

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.

> I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a huge claim like that?

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.

It's an invasive species. We wipe them out all the time.