Even if we succeed we can end up with more problems. Nature isn't math, if you add something, then remove it, you don't end up where you started. The ecosystem adapts to both changes separately and it's often hard to predict what will happen.

Not that I would worry in this case.

This is a universal argument for never doing anything.

It "proves too much" in argument jargon.

Why do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?

The introduction of an invasive species can have an overall beneficial effect if carefully evaluated, and there is a lot that can go wrong.

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.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzcwTyr6cE

And you can fix code by recompiling; there's a tabula rasa built into the programming domain that isn't built into real life.