I guess we have the capability to change a lot (from the technology we posess), but what would be the consequences of such impact on the rest of the ecosystem?
Basically 0, there are only a few species of mosquito that carry disease. Other species fulfill all other ecological roles without spreading horrible diseases.
It’s sort of weird to act concerned over mosquitos while humans are accelerating massive destruction over the entire planet because they like to eat meat and dive cars
You can be concerned about all of that at the same time. I'm a lifelong vegetarian who had never owned a car, but I'm also wary of attempts to alter existing ecosystems. I don't think it should be out of the question, but it should be approached with extreme caution.
My larger point is we aren’t approaching the vast majority of impacts on the environment with any caution at all. Mosquito eradication has been pretty thoroughly studied
I mean, we eliminated smallpox viruses, and the impact was that humans no longer die from smallpox. We have almost eliminated polio, which has the impact that nobody needs an iron lung any more. We have massively reduced the incidence of a whole range of other pathogens. Are you concerned about that, too?
I'd be much more concerned about the changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping (like filling the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases) than about changes that would, almost certainly, reduce harm and have only extremely unlikely and hypothetical risks.
Well, one notable difference between your examples of eliminated pathogens is that there is a food chain built on top of mosquitos. There are plenty of animals that eat both mosquito larvae (ex: tadpoles, some fish) and adults (ex: bats, dragonflies). I don't believe there is a similar food chain built on top of viruses.
I agree that many of the risks are hypothetical, but I disagree that we can simply dismiss them. Taking a decent amount of time to understand cause and effect on ecosystems seems like a perfectly prudent thing to me.
While they don't age like living organisms, their outer protein coating wears away due to temperature and UV light, so like you said they sort of "degrade".
We wouldn't have to destroy all mosquitos, though. Only a few species that are carriers of human pathogens. Once they are gone, other, benign mosquitos will occupy their spot, and will be eaten by the same animals as before.
Such a vague blanket statement sounds like an article of faith and not an actual informed opinion about the specific species of mosquitos, the animals that eat them, and the fungibility of their food sources. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
The mosquito species in question is native to northern Africa, and is an invasive species pretty much everywhere else in the world, having only arrived 300-400 years ago.
Kind of, because every time you stomp out one of Mother Nature's ways to keep the human population in check, you contribute to letting the population exceed carrying capacity, which leads to things like:
> changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping
The proposal is only to eliminate the disease born mosquitoes, letting the other mosquitoes take over. So if your polity has eliminated mosquitoes it's likely using chemicals rather than a more environmentally sound choice.
TLDR for this link is that they release male mosquitoes carrying a bacteria called Wolbachia. So this only affects the one species of mosquito they're targeting: Aedes aegypti.
Most mosquitoes are not the blood-sucking kind. It is possible to replace the blood-suckers with other species which still mostly fill the appropriate niches, like the birds' food chains, etc.
The article contains the following sentence: "In a randomized trial in Singapore, releases of Wolbachia-infected males cut mosquito populations by 85 percent compared to control areas and dengue infections by roughly 70 percent."
There are different things you can do to mosquitos with different techniques. The article discusses several different techniques. Some eliminate disease-spreading mosquitos, some eliminate the mosquitos. In Singapore, the latter was tried out. It is not the case that Singapore used chemicals.
lets say on the order of 1 billion, and let's assume the effectivity doesn't change when considering the 30% unaffected population
it would need to be applied to the surviving 30% repeatedly:
0.3 ^ N = 1 / 1B
so N = log(1B)/log(10/3) = ~17.2 times.
I predict nature protects itself with diversity: some of the male and female wild type will have natural aversion from, attraction to or neutral stance the modified Wolbachia carriers.
I predicted that those mosquito family lines that happen to be more Wolbachia-carrier averse become enriched over time.
There is an energetic cost to maintaining a parasitic lifeform, and that energetic term will always favor immunity against the parasite.
The hosts originally had their normal wild type gene regulation.
After infection one can approximate the novel gene regulation to be a combination of the host wild type gene regulation, perturbed by the Wolbachia gene regulatory network.
The metabolic rate of the Wolbachia will be a function of genome variations in the wild type population. The population (even if fully infected) thus has access to a whole bunch of knobs (promoter region binding affinities) and can continuously shed the metabolic burden of the parasite by natural selection, since 2 infected mosquitos, with differing levels of Wolbachia metabolism / reproduction, will have more energy and amino acids available for flight, healinig / repair, eggs, ... so that over a number of generations the Wolbachia incidence rate falls back to equilibrium levels. Then its a matter of time until a dormant virus or a one of the many virus particles scattered in nature and a mosquito meet again.
The article discussed alternative methods that have succeeded in being deployed:
> The approach has succeeded at the scale of cities. In a randomized trial in Singapore, releases of Wolbachia-infected males cut mosquito populations by 85 percent compared to control areas and dengue infections by roughly 70 percent.
(mosquitos infected with Wolbachia are both more resistant to diseases, and fail to reproduce in the case of infected male x uninfected female)
It's not that it eliminated mosquitoes entirely but rather that it effectively eliminated mosquitoes in the genus Aedes.
These are some of the most problematic/disease causing of the mosquitoes but also notably mosquitoes in the Aedes genus are essentially the only mosquitoes that are "hunting" during the day. All the other mosquitoes operate almost exclusively in the evening and at nighttime.
So by eliminating these mosquitoes a major disease vector is eliminated but at the same time it completely eliminates mosquitoes during the day (i.e. the main time when you are out and about trying to enjoy the summer).
I hate all the glib wordplay that reframes a policy decision and turns it on its head to make it seem like a different kind of policy decision. Nobody is “choosing” to have mosquitos. Mosquitos exist naturally. Maybe we can undertake a large scale intervention in the environment and wipe them out, but it that’s different than “choosing” to have them. Just say what you mean.
If we are "choosing" to live with mosquitoes, then we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
We could in one stroke take half of what multi-billionaires and quasi-trillionaires have hoarded. If they didn't have personal accountants, they wouldn't even notice it, as they have far more money than what they manage to burn through - and we would have the means to "choose" to solve real problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.
That would be $4 trillion or so of mostly paper wealth. It would be a one-shot confiscation, and the money you'd get would only be as much as the federal and state governments spend in three months. What problems do you think you could solve with $4 trillion that the government can't solve with the $10-12 trillion it spends annually?
> we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
It's debatable whether taking half of billionaires' wealth would materially advance the efforts in those areas.
What seems far less debatable is the political consequences of the accummulation of so much wealth — coupled with essentially zero legal restrictions on the use of that wealth in the quest for (governmental) power.
Can you give me a back of the napkin calculation without looking it up how much wealth billionaires have in the U.S. and compare that to how much the federal and state governments spend every month?
Mosquito dunks kill larvae. It's used as a mosquito population control in warmer areas. Me and a few neighbors used it this year with good results.
Get a 5 gallon bucket, add water/grass/leaves/dunk and let it sit for a few weeks. Every few weeks add more dunks. Put a stick in there so small animals don't get stuck when trying to get a drink.
- Depending on where you live, it could decimate the food source of other animals
- It attacks all mosquito's not just blood suckers
- I understand that there are conflicting reports on its effects on amphibians. I'm not sure how reliable the negative reviews are, or if it is "big citronella" sourced scare, but you may want to be cautious of which water sources you use them in.
> Mosquitofish were introduced directly into ecosystems in many parts of the world as a biocontrol to lower mosquito populations which in turn negatively affected many other species in each distinct bioregion. Mosquitofish in Australia are classified as a noxious pest and may have exacerbated the mosquito problem in many areas by outcompeting native invertebrate predators of mosquito larvae.
The gene gives a sizable advantage to mosquitoes that don't carry disease. Those mosquitoes will then take over the niche making it very difficult for disease carrying mosquitoes to come back.
Aedes aegypti are container breeders, you can totally eliminate them from an environment through diligent removal of standing water left in buckets, tires, pots, etc. This has been done before but the effort wasn't properly sustained so they've made a major comeback in disease prone areas. Killing a lot of them does have a substantial effect because they don't easily travel long distances by themselves so if the remaining resistant population is small enough it might just as easily end up dying out due to its breeding cycle being interrupted through other means. The part that should be criticized here is that any eradication campaign should also involve efforts to eliminate their breeding environments by removing junk and unattended containers that collect water.
Sterile insect releases are a tool for suppressing populations and have been used for about a century. This is not really a new suppression technique but a novel way of producing the sterile insects.
It has been used to suppress screw worm in the United States for decades until the administration cut the funding.
These are almost always a temporary solution that need constant funding and seasonal releases to work. The populations will surge back as soon as it's stopped.
>It shouldn’t have to take fifteen years to deploy effective products that can save lives.
I completely disagree. This is a reasonable and responsible timeline to look for unintended consequences. Some things, you simply cannot undo.
What if the bacteria (somehow) jumped to monarch butterflies and killed them off? Controlled releases and multi-year environmental studies are the correct and responsible course of action. In fact, when the injected insects are released into an area, the entire thing should be monitored carefully, as each ecosystem might respond differently.
All of that being said, excited to see this adopted more broadly. It's time these fuckwit insects die.
I can imagine a scenario where the testing takes 15 years, and a scenario where the testing is done in 1 year. I think it's probably wrong to look at it purely as "we should wait X years". The author describes the 15 years as "regulatory limbo" implying that it was known as safe before that, but I have no idea whether that's the case.
In general, you have to weigh the irreversible cost of unintended consequences with the irreversible cost of known human death from mosquitoes.
There are many mosquito species in competition for the same resources, only a few (iirc 10% in the US) of which sting humans and carry diseases. Wiping out the ones that attack people would allow other mosquitoes to take over the ecological niches.
Lots of animals eat mosquitos, but they really aren't the primary food source of any species, especially this particular type of mosquito. It would have a very minimal effect on food supply.
Mosquitoes control human populations, an invasive species. Removing mosquitoes will make humans proliferate, which is known to be environmentally damaging.
Joking aside, the consensus seems to be that the effect of removing disease-carrying mosquitoes (not all mosquitoes) from the environment is minor compared to how many lives it can save.
I totally understand there's a massive amount of unknowns about this. Let's continue analyzing what's the right course of action as we go, and ensure we're taking that understanding into account of what we do in the future.
In the end, whose lives do you prioritize given the lack of information today, and the lives at risk today? Deciding to do nothing still costs lives, and potentially drives us further into the bad state area.
If we take just the good parts of this and compare it with just the bad parts for that, we can go really far before crashing against reality at incredible speed. But cherry picking is a lot of fun and two can play this game:
Can you assure that saving this 20,000 humans will not mean one million humans starving and dying later when their main source of proteins (fisheries) will vanish forever by lack of mosquitoes and introduction of mosquito fishes (those pesky fish egg eaters)?. Wouldn't choose to save one million babies, you? Wow, that's evil. Think in the babies, people!
You should probably stop doing anything then, because you can't prove you getting out of bed in the morning won't lead to the destruction of society. You can't assure me it won't!
Even us filtering water for drinking has downstream effects which may ultimately cause harm which can't be entirely unproven. I guess we should just stop drinking clean water!
A billion human lives, or some sad trout who have to eat fruit flies instead. For me, it’s an obvious choice.
I just can’t understand the level of smugness it must take to insist that we must force another billion people to die of horrible diseases like malaria, because you want the moral high ground. How do you even tell yourself that killing all those people is the moral high ground?
> "Your saying we do things that save human lives, irrespective of the outcome?"
In fact, no, they did not say that. They said that the considered balance of the merits strongly favors eradicating disease-carrying mosquitos for someone who gives greater weight to the benefit of saving a billion human lives than to the cost of some trout getting only their second favorite food.
In places where it's been living for hundreds of years, that's a legitimate concern.
In Europe though, where aedes aegypti didn't exist 20 years ago, it's probably the other way around: what did the introduction of this new species damage? (apart from making the summer unbearable outside if any of your neighbour isn't very strict with standing water elimination)
Are you proposing that it would be infinitely bad? That somehow extincting a few varieties of mosquitoes could cause the collapse of all life on earth?
I don't get the "but what if it's somewhat - not infinitely - bad" argument? The known good is so dramatically good that we'd need a shocking amount of unknown bad to have made it not worth it. But if I'm choosing between mosquitoes, and say... fish, frogs, and a variety of birds, yes, get rid of the mosquitoes.
I am merely suggesting we don't really understand the consequences and things may not be as simplistic that everyone thinks. i.e. kill "bad guy" mosquitos, save a billion people.
We start spraying crops so we can end world hunger (or just make more money) and screwing around with other things and now we're killing bees and other things. This will ultimately come to haunt us.
The death of all bees would count as infinitely bad (in terms of crop pollination) and we're doing a very good job in making that happen.
We do know the consequences. Wealthier nations have essentially eliminated 99%+ of the population of the few species of disease carrying mosquitoes in many broad areas. The effect on the ecosystem was not noticeable. Using cheaper methods to help poorer areas will save 10's of millions of lives and eliminate billions of cases of disease. It's overwhelmingly worth it even if it caused ecological harm. To not do this is, to even fight against doing it is, IMO, immoral.
Probably because those ecosystems were not here anymore, as they were bulldozed to remove the mosquitoes.
Entire aquatic ecosystems were wiped, and you believe that there was not any "noticeable" effects in survival of migrant aquatic birds, local fisheries, extinction of endemic fishes, frogs and aquatic plants, management of water reservoirs?... seriously?
Then why wealthier nations are massively trying to restore this habitats again to protect themselves from floods, restore biodiversity and assure the water supply?
Meta: I feel a bit sad to see this is light grey for me due to the number of "down votes" it's had. The question is in good faith, and you may think the answer is no, but down voting good faith discussion about the implications of tech doesn't help foster the open discussion vibe that makes hacker news special.
That's exactly what I was trying to achieve. Some people stepped forward and explained one side and some explained the other side. I learnt something which is the point.
Others just downvoted me because they disagreed (which is not what you're supposed to do, afaik).
I don't even want to engage anymore as others just think I want a billion people to die to save some 'bad' mosquitos, which is obviously a ridiculous statement.
Bats in the US are dying from a fungal disease. I suspect something similar is happening in Australia.
> White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a fungal disease killing hibernating bats in North America. The fungus, named Pseudogymnoascus destructans (or Pd for short) likely originated in Europe or Asia. Sometime in the early 2000's Pd arrived in North America and attacked vulnerable bat species, resulting in unusual and large die-offs of bats first observed in New York in 2006. Since then, the disease has spread to most US states and Canadian provinces, leaving millions of dead bats in its path. WNS causes high death rates and fast population declines in the species affected by it.
Humanity is eradicating entire species left and right. Mosquitoes are our worst enemies. Can we have a deal to save some little poor amazonian frog (the doomed one which has only ~100 animals and 1 location left) and after we accomplish that, in return wipe out one species of mosquitoes?
I hope the Amazonian frog doesn't depend too much on mosquitos as food. Or that by eradicating mosquitoes, insectivorous animals don't eat more of other, less abundant and fast-breeding, insects as a replacement and it starved the Amazonian frog.
(I don't know what the Amazonian frog eats; my point is that biotopes are complex and second- and third-order effects need to be monitored. That's why smaller interventions - e.g. making humans poisonous to mosquitoes, pushing them to the evolutionary path of avoiding humans - would be better than whole eradication.)
That's what we thought about all the other species we intentionally eradicated, both the ones that turned out to be unimportant, and the ones that turned out to be very important.
Note that these specific mosquito species are invasive in most of the world after they escaped their native ecosystems and proceeded to spread like wildfire so arguably eradicating them would be a net benefit for most ecosystems.
The Wolbachia bacteria already infect a majority of insect species and are widespread. They are not "mutated" in the sense that they are lab created, but occur naturally. Birds eat infected insects every day, and so do you probably every now and then by accident...
If the various regulatory bodies are disclaiming jurisdiction over the matter, then what is preventing these companies from proceeding without their blessing?
The avalanche of lawsuits that every NGO that hadn't been paid off would file within minutes that'd extract the same toll in terms of years, plus potentially even higher legal fees.
The mosquito is part of the ecosystem, and remove that and you remove the food source for many creatures including bats, frogs, swallows/swifts and many others.
I agree they are a nuisance but they do not exist on their own. Many of them spend their time feeding on plants rather than blood.
Bill Gates is involved in this. Always a red flag.
I'd say paranoid-by-default folks are a huge red flag on any agenda. Something about disservice to the cause and all that.
Anyway since they kill north of half a million folks yearly and infect couple of hundred millions as official minimums, I am more than happy with some other species of small insects take their empty spot. Of course not everybody cares much about poor folks dying quietly half around the world, but some do. One of very few benefits of global warming is the migration of these bastards more north so rich folks in US and Europe will have more personal stake in this topic rather than usual 'oh that's so horrible, next'.
Some minor re-adjustement of ecosystem is more than fine, anyway we do it constantly for rather pathetic reasons if any. I would add ticks, all forms, to the effort.
Obviously we should pass a law so that only mosquitoes that have undergone a full medical examination and are certified free of diseases are allowed to bite humans.
Reminds me of the novel Everything is Tuberculosis, which explores the idea that we have a cure for the leading cause of death from infectious disease, and "that the disease is no longer primarily caused by the bacteria, but instead by human choices."
The tools available for these biological operations are fascinating. OP's article links this other one, which explains everything that can be done in practice with today's tech and reads like science fiction : https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-ultra-selfish-gene/
I'm reminded of the horror movie Mimic, in which a genetically modified bugs are deployed to deal with a rampant cockroach population. Once the cockroaches are taken care of, the mutant bugs focus on the next disasterous infestation...humans!
Something about mosquito-borne diseases lands on HN every year or so, resulting in hand-wringing about whether we should deliberately cause species extinction. I have seen the suffering they cause firsthand, and so my response has become rather consistent:
Do we want to eradicate mosquitoes?
Yes; fuck them.
We (intentionally or no, mostly not) cause the extinction of hundreds to thousands of species every year for much more mundane reasons: deforestation is the big one, climate change another. And that buys us arguably nothing but enriching people that benefit from the process of deforestation and climate change--folks that're economically desperate enough to log illegally, and energy barons. These extinctions are mostly tragic, and the net benefit to human societies is likely negative.
Mosquitoes are fucking evil. They kill more humans every year than any other animal. Malaria is only the most well-known disease they spread; see also dengue ("breakbone fever", named for what it feels like), West Nile virus, and more. Those that malaria doesn't kill are frequently left with a low-level chronic infection that makes them less effective as people. Malaria and mosquitoes kill children, disable the working population, and economically cripple entire nations.
As best we can tell, things that eat mosquitoes also eat other things. But I'd vote for nuking the mozzies from orbit even if that weren't the case. They're such an unmitigated cause of human suffering and hardship.
They're not evil, they have zero idea about the consequences of their actions. I think this viewpoint is why people are hesitant to just make things go instinct because people don't like them.
The technology to eradicate Aedes mosquitoes exists. Time to use it ruthlessly. There's no good reason not to do it and at least a million reasons per year to do it.
Targeting the disease-spreading species is the point, there are 3,500+ species and only a handful of them cause widespread suffering in humans, and the predators of those are generalists and would survive on other insects.
Use genetic engineering to extinct a species... what could go wrong?
Not to mention the many species of, e.g., birds, etc., that rely either heavily, or almost entirely, on mosquitoes, as a food source. One does not simply eradicate an entire species, through genetic sorcery, for the entire planet, without causing negative side effects.
This is just like cloud seeding. A few powerful idiots ruin it for everyone else, in the service of accomplishing a specific goal. We are likely experiencing major changes in the regional climates, as a result of cloud seeding. For example, right here in Idaho we are stealing water from clouds floating overhead, through a cloud seeding program primarily driven by Idaho Power. Do I benefit from this? Of course. We use the irrigation water and benefit from the cheap electricity rates. At what expense? Who knows. Somewhere east of us is likely getting royally screwed. As long as we have what we need here, though, who cares about anybody else or the rest of the planet's ecosystem, right?
The hilarious part, to me, is the fact that those who get excited by this idea (obliteration of entire species through genetic engineering) are the selfsame supposed champions of the climate when it comes to "GlObAl WaRmInG iS kIlLiNg EvErYoNe", asking for us to send our money to the Guberment to fix the problem. I guess it's not too surprising, since these people don't think for themselves; they are simply following with the TV told them to think.
I did some research over the summer on Anopheles gambiae, a mosquito that spreads malaria, and I was stunned to learn how many diseases are spread by mosquitoes. There are tons of viruses (yellow fever, dengue, West Nile), protozoa (like malaria), and even parasitic worms (lymphatic filariasis--the pictures of this are awful). Hundreds of millions of people are infected with these diseases every year, and I'm a bit shocked of how ignorant I was to this. Malaria eradication has stalled over the last decade [0], and I hope that we can resume it.
YSK, there are like 4000 species of mosquito and this is talking about getting rid of only a small number of them. There would still be lots of mosquitoes.
In certain parts of the world an entire lifestyle has been built on the logistics of the old pesticide methods. Good luck getting rid of them. Furthermore, and this matters enormously, Walbachia is still a nuisance. If Walbachia replacement is deployed, a resident can quite reasonably say: “Great, dengue risk is lower, but why am I still getting eaten alive in my backyard?”. That resident may continue demanding spraying, larvicides, traps, pest control, etc.
My family lives in a country aboard where malaria isn't rare, and I and my sisters got malaria when we were visiting that place. I'm also very happy to hear about these new technologies and i really cant wait for them to be deployed
165 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 78.8 ms ] threadI'd be much more concerned about the changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping (like filling the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases) than about changes that would, almost certainly, reduce harm and have only extremely unlikely and hypothetical risks.
I agree that many of the risks are hypothetical, but I disagree that we can simply dismiss them. Taking a decent amount of time to understand cause and effect on ecosystems seems like a perfectly prudent thing to me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49967028
Kind of, because every time you stomp out one of Mother Nature's ways to keep the human population in check, you contribute to letting the population exceed carrying capacity, which leads to things like:
> changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping
Mostly because the rich world eradicated a lot of them to stop malaria.
Of course, once we were safe we told the rest of the world they had to live (and die) with with malaria, because we had discovered environmentalism.
There are different things you can do to mosquitos with different techniques. The article discusses several different techniques. Some eliminate disease-spreading mosquitos, some eliminate the mosquitos. In Singapore, the latter was tried out. It is not the case that Singapore used chemicals.
lets say on the order of 1 billion, and let's assume the effectivity doesn't change when considering the 30% unaffected population
it would need to be applied to the surviving 30% repeatedly:
0.3 ^ N = 1 / 1B
so N = log(1B)/log(10/3) = ~17.2 times.
I predict nature protects itself with diversity: some of the male and female wild type will have natural aversion from, attraction to or neutral stance the modified Wolbachia carriers.
I predicted that those mosquito family lines that happen to be more Wolbachia-carrier averse become enriched over time.
There is an energetic cost to maintaining a parasitic lifeform, and that energetic term will always favor immunity against the parasite.
After infection one can approximate the novel gene regulation to be a combination of the host wild type gene regulation, perturbed by the Wolbachia gene regulatory network.
The metabolic rate of the Wolbachia will be a function of genome variations in the wild type population. The population (even if fully infected) thus has access to a whole bunch of knobs (promoter region binding affinities) and can continuously shed the metabolic burden of the parasite by natural selection, since 2 infected mosquitos, with differing levels of Wolbachia metabolism / reproduction, will have more energy and amino acids available for flight, healinig / repair, eggs, ... so that over a number of generations the Wolbachia incidence rate falls back to equilibrium levels. Then its a matter of time until a dormant virus or a one of the many virus particles scattered in nature and a mosquito meet again.
> The approach has succeeded at the scale of cities. In a randomized trial in Singapore, releases of Wolbachia-infected males cut mosquito populations by 85 percent compared to control areas and dengue infections by roughly 70 percent.
(mosquitos infected with Wolbachia are both more resistant to diseases, and fail to reproduce in the case of infected male x uninfected female)
These are some of the most problematic/disease causing of the mosquitoes but also notably mosquitoes in the Aedes genus are essentially the only mosquitoes that are "hunting" during the day. All the other mosquitoes operate almost exclusively in the evening and at nighttime.
So by eliminating these mosquitoes a major disease vector is eliminated but at the same time it completely eliminates mosquitoes during the day (i.e. the main time when you are out and about trying to enjoy the summer).
We could in one stroke take half of what multi-billionaires and quasi-trillionaires have hoarded. If they didn't have personal accountants, they wouldn't even notice it, as they have far more money than what they manage to burn through - and we would have the means to "choose" to solve real problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.
It's debatable whether taking half of billionaires' wealth would materially advance the efforts in those areas.
What seems far less debatable is the political consequences of the accummulation of so much wealth — coupled with essentially zero legal restrictions on the use of that wealth in the quest for (governmental) power.
Get a 5 gallon bucket, add water/grass/leaves/dunk and let it sit for a few weeks. Every few weeks add more dunks. Put a stick in there so small animals don't get stuck when trying to get a drink.
Though:
- It won't stop breeding in other standing water
- Depending on where you live, it could decimate the food source of other animals
- It attacks all mosquito's not just blood suckers
- I understand that there are conflicting reports on its effects on amphibians. I'm not sure how reliable the negative reviews are, or if it is "big citronella" sourced scare, but you may want to be cautious of which water sources you use them in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquitofish
> Mosquitofish were introduced directly into ecosystems in many parts of the world as a biocontrol to lower mosquito populations which in turn negatively affected many other species in each distinct bioregion. Mosquitofish in Australia are classified as a noxious pest and may have exacerbated the mosquito problem in many areas by outcompeting native invertebrate predators of mosquito larvae.
I assume the many birds ate them real fast.
A gene which incurs a fitness cost will be purged from the population under selection!!
It has been used to suppress screw worm in the United States for decades until the administration cut the funding.
These are almost always a temporary solution that need constant funding and seasonal releases to work. The populations will surge back as soon as it's stopped.
I completely disagree. This is a reasonable and responsible timeline to look for unintended consequences. Some things, you simply cannot undo.
What if the bacteria (somehow) jumped to monarch butterflies and killed them off? Controlled releases and multi-year environmental studies are the correct and responsible course of action. In fact, when the injected insects are released into an area, the entire thing should be monitored carefully, as each ecosystem might respond differently.
All of that being said, excited to see this adopted more broadly. It's time these fuckwit insects die.
In general, you have to weigh the irreversible cost of unintended consequences with the irreversible cost of known human death from mosquitoes.
Does anything eat them as food? Wouldn't it be environmentally damaging to remove a source of food for X?
Joking aside, the consensus seems to be that the effect of removing disease-carrying mosquitoes (not all mosquitoes) from the environment is minor compared to how many lives it can save.
If 20,000 humans weren't significantly harmed from disease because of this release, but 70,000 frogs faced starvation, which would you choose?
If we lose those frogs, it most likely would cause a cascade across other species. There are lots of things that eat frogs.
In the end, whose lives do you prioritize given the lack of information today, and the lives at risk today? Deciding to do nothing still costs lives, and potentially drives us further into the bad state area.
They're only applied to thing we don't want to do.
In reality, it's always true that we don't fully know, so applying the argument always means "let's not do this".
Can you assure that saving this 20,000 humans will not mean one million humans starving and dying later when their main source of proteins (fisheries) will vanish forever by lack of mosquitoes and introduction of mosquito fishes (those pesky fish egg eaters)?. Wouldn't choose to save one million babies, you? Wow, that's evil. Think in the babies, people!
Even us filtering water for drinking has downstream effects which may ultimately cause harm which can't be entirely unproven. I guess we should just stop drinking clean water!
A billion human lives, or some sad trout who have to eat fruit flies instead. For me, it’s an obvious choice.
I just can’t understand the level of smugness it must take to insist that we must force another billion people to die of horrible diseases like malaria, because you want the moral high ground. How do you even tell yourself that killing all those people is the moral high ground?
Yeah, it gets a bit silly real fast. I've never been accused for forcing a billion to die, so thanks for that.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
In fact, no, they did not say that. They said that the considered balance of the merits strongly favors eradicating disease-carrying mosquitos for someone who gives greater weight to the benefit of saving a billion human lives than to the cost of some trout getting only their second favorite food.
In Europe though, where aedes aegypti didn't exist 20 years ago, it's probably the other way around: what did the introduction of this new species damage? (apart from making the summer unbearable outside if any of your neighbour isn't very strict with standing water elimination)
I don't get the "but what if it's somewhat - not infinitely - bad" argument? The known good is so dramatically good that we'd need a shocking amount of unknown bad to have made it not worth it. But if I'm choosing between mosquitoes, and say... fish, frogs, and a variety of birds, yes, get rid of the mosquitoes.
We start spraying crops so we can end world hunger (or just make more money) and screwing around with other things and now we're killing bees and other things. This will ultimately come to haunt us.
The death of all bees would count as infinitely bad (in terms of crop pollination) and we're doing a very good job in making that happen.
Probably because those ecosystems were not here anymore, as they were bulldozed to remove the mosquitoes.
Entire aquatic ecosystems were wiped, and you believe that there was not any "noticeable" effects in survival of migrant aquatic birds, local fisheries, extinction of endemic fishes, frogs and aquatic plants, management of water reservoirs?... seriously?
Then why wealthier nations are massively trying to restore this habitats again to protect themselves from floods, restore biodiversity and assure the water supply?
Others just downvoted me because they disagreed (which is not what you're supposed to do, afaik).
I don't even want to engage anymore as others just think I want a billion people to die to save some 'bad' mosquitos, which is obviously a ridiculous statement.
The population of an endangered Australian bat suddenly dropped by up to 16%. No one knows why
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jul/30/southern...
> White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a fungal disease killing hibernating bats in North America. The fungus, named Pseudogymnoascus destructans (or Pd for short) likely originated in Europe or Asia. Sometime in the early 2000's Pd arrived in North America and attacked vulnerable bat species, resulting in unusual and large die-offs of bats first observed in New York in 2006. Since then, the disease has spread to most US states and Canadian provinces, leaving millions of dead bats in its path. WNS causes high death rates and fast population declines in the species affected by it.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/what-is-white-nose-syndrome.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-nose_syndrome
(I don't know what the Amazonian frog eats; my point is that biotopes are complex and second- and third-order effects need to be monitored. That's why smaller interventions - e.g. making humans poisonous to mosquitoes, pushing them to the evolutionary path of avoiding humans - would be better than whole eradication.)
People like the author actually belive that there is no chance of real world interactions happening.
Eg what is the bacteria jumps to some other organism? What if it mutates? What if the birds eat the mosquitoes and carry a mutated bacteria elsewhere?
There is a reason why you need autistic level safety for such projects, and even then things like this might happen.
It's completely impossible to guarantee theses things, no matter how long you study it in a lab.
Some people just aren't capable of thinking more than 1 step ahead.
I agree they are a nuisance but they do not exist on their own. Many of them spend their time feeding on plants rather than blood.
Bill Gates is involved in this. Always a red flag.
Anyway since they kill north of half a million folks yearly and infect couple of hundred millions as official minimums, I am more than happy with some other species of small insects take their empty spot. Of course not everybody cares much about poor folks dying quietly half around the world, but some do. One of very few benefits of global warming is the migration of these bastards more north so rich folks in US and Europe will have more personal stake in this topic rather than usual 'oh that's so horrible, next'.
Some minor re-adjustement of ecosystem is more than fine, anyway we do it constantly for rather pathetic reasons if any. I would add ticks, all forms, to the effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Is_Tuberculosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimic_(film)
Do we want to eradicate mosquitoes?
Yes; fuck them.
We (intentionally or no, mostly not) cause the extinction of hundreds to thousands of species every year for much more mundane reasons: deforestation is the big one, climate change another. And that buys us arguably nothing but enriching people that benefit from the process of deforestation and climate change--folks that're economically desperate enough to log illegally, and energy barons. These extinctions are mostly tragic, and the net benefit to human societies is likely negative.
Mosquitoes are fucking evil. They kill more humans every year than any other animal. Malaria is only the most well-known disease they spread; see also dengue ("breakbone fever", named for what it feels like), West Nile virus, and more. Those that malaria doesn't kill are frequently left with a low-level chronic infection that makes them less effective as people. Malaria and mosquitoes kill children, disable the working population, and economically cripple entire nations.
As best we can tell, things that eat mosquitoes also eat other things. But I'd vote for nuking the mozzies from orbit even if that weren't the case. They're such an unmitigated cause of human suffering and hardship.
They're not evil, they have zero idea about the consequences of their actions. I think this viewpoint is why people are hesitant to just make things go instinct because people don't like them.
Not to mention the many species of, e.g., birds, etc., that rely either heavily, or almost entirely, on mosquitoes, as a food source. One does not simply eradicate an entire species, through genetic sorcery, for the entire planet, without causing negative side effects.
This is just like cloud seeding. A few powerful idiots ruin it for everyone else, in the service of accomplishing a specific goal. We are likely experiencing major changes in the regional climates, as a result of cloud seeding. For example, right here in Idaho we are stealing water from clouds floating overhead, through a cloud seeding program primarily driven by Idaho Power. Do I benefit from this? Of course. We use the irrigation water and benefit from the cheap electricity rates. At what expense? Who knows. Somewhere east of us is likely getting royally screwed. As long as we have what we need here, though, who cares about anybody else or the rest of the planet's ecosystem, right?
The hilarious part, to me, is the fact that those who get excited by this idea (obliteration of entire species through genetic engineering) are the selfsame supposed champions of the climate when it comes to "GlObAl WaRmInG iS kIlLiNg EvErYoNe", asking for us to send our money to the Guberment to fix the problem. I guess it's not too surprising, since these people don't think for themselves; they are simply following with the TV told them to think.
[0] https://anopheles-genomic-surveillance.github.io/home.html
Larvicides can still be a thing though. No benefit in keeping those around.
She mates only once, which is why releasing sterile males works to reduce mosquito populations.
https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/38495-what-we-got-wrong-abo...
the paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098222...
I'm super prone to getting bitten so having to apply insect repellent and restrict myself to wearing certain clothes is such a pain.