Only a small number of species (single digit percentage) go after mammals. And even less than have been found to be vectors for disease.
The basic point is that yes, we can wipe out selected mosquito species via eradication programs (like sterile mate release) with zero consequence outside of healthier people, because human hazardous mosquitos aren’t unique to the ecological niche they fill.
I realize this is a dumb starting point, but ... Cows don't eat mosquitos, Feed corn is not pollinated by mosquitos, Orange groves do not require mosquitos. What, specifically, are we afraid of?
But "collapse" is not what I'm saying. If you were to remove mosquitos in a localized region and observe the effects on the region's ecology, you could witness the problems, reintroduce the bugs, and revitalize the region (probably it'd recover anyway).
Mosquitos are fairly localized. Their range upperbound is 7 miles. Some just fly 300 feet and breed around your house. There are plenty of ecological phenomena that are managed in "a few miles" ranges, like fish populations, forests, etc.
I haven't heard a compelling reason in any of these threads to believe that it's actually dangerous to remove them from a few sq mile area.
There's no reason to be absolutist about problems we can manage, just based on unobserved worst case solutions with no risk profile attached.
*: e.g. heartworm in dogs
and unfortunately we are in warming planet where Malaria's host vector range is going to increase as temperatures continue to rise, destroying Malaria is one of the greatest possible morale goods we could pursue.
Those are long dead already, aren't they? I guess the right question to be asked when thinking about taking action is which one is going to kill more in the near future.
> unfortunately we are in warming planet where Malaria's host vector range is going to increase as temperatures continue to rise.
This is a fair point and should be accounted when thinking about the impact on malaria
> Destroying Malaria is one of the greatest possible morale goods we could pursue
It's great for sure, maybe among the greatest ones around health, but I don't think it'd go over peace.
https://verily.com/solutions/public-health/debug
It's a Verily project that causes population collapse in mosquitoes like aedes aegypti by rendering the males infertile.
> Aedes aegypti mosquitoes carry dengue, chikungunya, Zika and yellow fever diseases which have a large and growing impact on human health. They live almost exclusively in close association with humans, don’t fly very far compared to some mosquito species and are particularly difficult to attack using traditional methods, such as pesticides and source reduction of breeding sites.They’re also extensively studied in many labs around the world. We hope what we learn with the Aedes aegypti in the field will be helpful in developing new ways of tackling other mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit.
Wow, the Wikipedia article on Wolbachia is absolutely fascinating, thanks. I guess now they will push Wolbachia into Anopheles and use it as another control against malaria.
This is a false dichotomy. Malaria is transmitted by only specific and very small subset of mosquitoes. There would still be plenty of mosquitoes if you eliminate the ones that cause unimaginably massive population harm.
This is like saying nobody should ever take any medicine ever, even after years of study and analysis, because there might be some unknown harm that we haven't yet identified from it because we aren't looking in the right places. And yet we have collectively decided that taking medicine when we are sick is actually a good thing to do, because being sick in known catastrophic ways is objective and true while the unknown unknown is purely hypothetical and unfounded.
Well millions upon millions of people are dying, objectively and truly, and we can stop it. And what you have to say against a proposal that has had substantial risk analysis already done, where the harms have been determined to be nil, is something completely unfounded without a basis in any known mechanism in the real world.
It has been analyzed to death. At some point it becomes important to recognize that further objection on the same basis that has already been rebutted time and again is no longer clever and is just obstructionism with a willfully catastrophic cost.
Surely no-one would argue against the benefits of antibiotics, and yet after decades of successful use we're only now discovering that in using them, we're breeding resistant bacteria that we have no way to deal with. We're clever monkeys but we should remember that however hard we think, we can always miss something important, especially when we're talking about large complex biological systems.
If we can develop effective vaccines then I personally don't see the need to start deliberately exterminating species, even the truly loathesome ones.
A better example would be something like tetraethyl lead, which poisoned (indeed continues to poison) huge numbers of people for relatively minor gain. Even then, the problems were known, the profit motive just won out over the don’t-poison-everyone motive.
People have been constantly arguing against all kinds of medicine, including antibiotics. And we have solutions to resistant bacteria. It's a social problem of developing expensive new antibiotics while restricting their market to the last line of defence. And finally, the analogy breaks down: we did develop and deploy antibiotics, and have been able to see the consequences and adapt as a result.
We're mindlessly eradicting species all the time. There might be a trolley problem in intentionally nuking one. But that's, again, socio-philosophical. If the first ecosystem we eradicate in collapses, against the predictions of practically every expert in the field, we can stop. In the meantime, we avoid a useless debate that costs millions their lives.
> If we can develop effective vaccines then I personally don't see the need to start deliberately exterminating species, even the truly loathesome ones
Again, a social problem. It's easier to get rid of the diseasse by taking out mosquitoes than it is to continuously convince populations to get vaccinated into perpetuity. (To say nothing of vaccines' adverse effects.)
Not sure what you mean here; I was replying to this:
> Certainly we must be missing some factor from this analysis
> ---
> This is like saying nobody should ever take any medicine ever, even after years of study and analysis, because there might be some unknown harm that we haven't yet identified from it because we aren't looking in the right places.
...my point being that we are now facing previously unknown harms despite the best research available at the time (maybe antibiotic resistance itself was foreseen, but did anybody warn about hospital run-off and agricultural usage creating reservoirs of resistance-breeding via competition and horizontal gene transfer inside sewage systems? This is the sort of unforeseen consequence I'm talking about).
> We're mindlessly eradicting species all the time. There might be a trolley problem in intentionally nuking one. But that's, again, socio-philosophical. If the first ecosystem we eradicate in collapses, against the predictions of practically every expert in the field, we can stop. In the meantime, we avoid a useless debate that costs millions their lives.
This is exactly the kind of hubris I'm arguing against.
The fact that we're doing it all the time anyway is not an argument to do more of it. It's a compelling reason to do less.
Ecosystems don't generally exist in total isolation from each other, and don't just collapse when we poke them. Far more likely is that we will cause a problem that takes years or more to manifest, by which time it's out of our control and much more difficult or impossible to fix.
The debate is not useless when we're meddling with things that we don't fully understand, with unknown consequences for the environment that we live in. This is the trolley problem - do we save people from malaria now at the cost of potentially worse problems in the future? Since we don't know for sure what effect our intervention will have on a grander scale, what can't know what if any damage we're doing further down the line. I think it's OK to consider that carefully; in the meantime, vaccines are still our best option, and social problems are generally easier to quantify and address; we're pretty good at human psychology these days.
> To say nothing of vaccines' adverse effects.
Every vaccine has some fraction of the population is affects adversely. We’re super strict about that hazard. But it exists. Eradicating a mosquito isn’t risk free, but it’s (a) one and done and (b) strikes me as less risky.
There's a big difference between eliminating all mosquitoes and eliminating just malaria-carrying mosquito species. IIRC studies show that if you eliminate malaria-carrying mosquito species that other mosquito species very quickly take over this ecological niche.
It's a risk, but it's not worse than the thousands of other risks we've already taken. Given the absolutely insane amount of death and suffering caused by mosquito-borne diseases, it's probably also a justifiable one.
As for eradicating host populations/mosquitoes, it's not the greatest idea. Ecosystems are complicated and don't generally benefit from that sort of interference. Maybe if it's a recently invasive species, sure, as long as other species don't get inadvertently by-caught. Drastically simplifying - birds need to eat too, and they tried to do this style of ecosystem management in the past and it has had brutally adverse effects for ecosystem stability.
I think that this is an incredible development, but also seems kind of destabilizing. It's hard to say without seeming or being callous, that it seems good now, but we need to try to predict outcomes far into the future. That is to say - people think they are smart to have done it, and yeah it's doable, but is it really such a great idea to throw such a series of proverbial monkey wrenches into our proverbial biological engines?