The Economist: Gene-ocide; the promise and peril of gene drives (should we wipe out the mosquito?)

[No Excuses]

We likely won't undertake measures to wipe them out worldwide. But I hope the referendum in Florida Keys passes. Small scale experimentation will tell us enough of the ecological impacts to see if it's worthwhile on a large scale.

[twa]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

We likely won't undertake measures to wipe them out worldwide. But I hope the referendum in Florida Keys passes. Small scale experimentation will tell us enough of the ecological impacts to see if it's worthwhile on a large scale.

 

Besides Florida is sinking anyway.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, twa said:

 

Besides Florida is sinking anyway.

Need about 5 miles and I'll be beach front baby!!!!!

[Predicto]

The ecological niche that mosquitoes fill in, say, feeding birds and so on, would be quickly filled by other similar insects that don't have the unfortunate habit of spreading disease and killing millions of people.  The bottom of a pond has many insect larvae that are not mosquitos.  Midges, lacewings, caddisflies, mayflies, damselflies, water bug,  They would fill that niche overnight.  

I have yet to hear a single biologist suggest anything unique about the mosquito that other insects cannot and would not do - other than spread tons of dealdly diseases.  

2 hours ago, Xameil said:

 

You make it sound like the bubonic plague....

Calm down sheesh.

 

For much of the world, malaria and yellow fever have been at least as harmful, or more harmful, than the bubonic plague.   Zika is just the disease du jour,

[Xameil]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, but ya, Zika is being underestimated by people who have the ability to address it.  This isn't like the ebola outbreak where we could just shake our head from the sideline until those African countries just flat out admitted they were going to lose unless they got more help.  This is already in Puerto Rico and Miami.

Guess youve never heard of West nile...

[Renegade7]

Just now, Xameil said:

Guess youve never heard of West nile...

 

Is West Nile sexual transmitted among asymptomatic partners and causing significant brain defects in newborn babies?  That's news to me.

[Xameil]

West Nile has killed it's share of people up here...how is that any less then Zika?

You know what else spreads diseases....people, food.

 

Sorry you still haven't convinced me that an entire species should be wiped out just because they are a nuisance...

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I think if we are considering wiping out an entire species based on the sheer and utter damage and harm it can do the world we should be looking at...well...humans. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, Xameil said:

West Nile has killed it's share of people up here...how is that any less then Zika?

You know what else spreads diseases....people, food.

 

Sorry you still haven't convinced me that an entire species should be wiped out just because they are a nuisance...

I'm not trying to.  Either way, I've stated my reasons for why I disagree with you, but if you call what's going on in Brazil a nuisance, I'm wasting my time anyway.

[No Excuses]

7 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I think if we are considering wiping out an entire species based on the sheer and utter damage and harm it can do the world we should be looking at...well...humans. 

This is the kind of brilliant insight I was looking for when I started the thread.

Pack it up folks.

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not trying to.  Either way, I've stated my reasons for why I disagree with you, but if you call what's going on in Brazil a nuisance, I'm wasting my time anyway.

First world perspective really. 

"Don't mess with nature!!!" - while "nature" (****ing mosquitos FFS) devastates the lives of millions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries.

[Xameil]

Yup....you are.

As much as I dispise mosquitos, and I agree that it does not appear that they have any redeeming place in the world, wiping out a species is a very bad idea. 

Plus are you wiping out all the species of mosquitos, or just the ones that bite? Because there are tons of species, and only a handful bite.

Along with the mosquitos,  we should get rid of fleas and ticks. Oh wait...spiders too. Might as well get rid of bats....ya know...rabies.

It's a slippery slope. 

[No Excuses]

5 minutes ago, Xameil said:

wiping out a species is a very bad idea. 

 

 

You keep saying this and there is simply no evidence that it is true for mosquitos. And there is no uniform principle in Biology that human-driven extinction of species in general is "a very bad idea". And for the species for which it is a bad idea, there are efforts in place to protect them.

There is a reason why Conservation Biologists aren't exactly lining up behind the mosquito.

[Xameil]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

You keep saying this and there is simply no evidence that it is true for mosquitos. And there is no uniform principle in Biology that human-driven extinction of species in general is "a very bad idea". And for the species for which it is a bad idea, there are efforts in place to protect them.

There is a reason why Conservation Biologists aren't exactly lining up behind the mosquito.

My point is, we as a people are very short sighted. You don't see a reason for them, I don't see a reason for them, but they exist for a reason. Just because the reason isn't in front of your face means nothing. How do you know that the mosquito...doesn't keep a much worse organism in check?

Remember there are over 3000 species of mosquitos and only a small handful bite people.

15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

First world perspective really. 

"Don't mess with nature!!!" - while "nature" (****ing mosquitos FFS) devastates the lives of millions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries.

Not first world perspective. Just a perspective that maybe...just maybe there is some reason for something that we just don't know.

I think it's highly arrogant of people to think that we know the function of everything in nature

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Remember there are over 3000 species of mosquitos and only a small handful bite people.

Based on the techniques that are proposed to exterminate mosquitos, this point is largely invalid. The methods are selective at the individual species level.

6 minutes ago, Xameil said:

How do you know that the mosquito...doesn't keep a much worse organism in check?

There are people who examine this kind of stuff or a living. Give this a read.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

[Xameil]

Just now, No Excuses said:

Based on the techniques that are proposed to exterminate mosquitos, this point is largely invalid. The methods are selective at the individual species level.

There are people who examine this kind of stuff or a living. Give this a read.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

Already read it. Did you?

While the overall attitude is that the mosquito can be replaced, the author points out there are several uses of the mosquito.

As for your selective extermination....again...you have zero idea of the consequences.

Personally, my opinion is the devil ya know is better then the one ya don't. 

[Renegade7]

24 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Yup....you are.

As much as I dispise mosquitos, and I agree that it does not appear that they have any redeeming place in the world, wiping out a species is a very bad idea. 

Plus are you wiping out all the species of mosquitos, or just the ones that bite? Because there are tons of species, and only a handful bite.

Along with the mosquitos,  we should get rid of fleas and ticks. Oh wait...spiders too. Might as well get rid of bats....ya know...rabies.

It's a slippery slope. 

We can focus on the ones that bite people, that's fine by me.  You sound like you're worried about it getting out of hand.  I'm saying its already out of hand, in some places way worse then others.  This is on the table for a reason.

[Xameil]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

We focus on the ones that bite people, that's fine by me.  You sound like you're worried about it getting out of hand.  I'm saying its already out of hand, in some places way worse then others.

What I am saying is we have no idea the ramifications. You can find ways to prevent getting bitten. The problem is people don't, or can't due to economic reasons take the measures that will protect them.

[twa]

What if God made them to control the population?(insert evolution for the bigots)

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, Xameil said:

What I am saying is we have no idea the ramifications.

You keep saying this and it is completely false. If you aren't open to the evidence provided by the field of Insect Biology, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

6 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Already read it. Did you?

While the overall attitude is that the mosquito can be replaced, the author points out there are several uses of the mosquito.

I'm assuming you didn't really bother to read it because they say that while they have some uses, they are largely replaceable and not really key components of the ecosystem.

[Renegade7]

22 minutes ago, Xameil said:

What I am saying is we have no idea the ramifications. You can find ways to prevent getting bitten. The problem is people don't, or can't due to economic reasons take the measures that will protect them.

 

Look, CDC says only about 30-40 species out 3,500 transmit Malaria.  I've come down to focusing on the ones that bite people and transmit diseases that effect humans (which by that article is only a couple hundred).  Focusing on reasons like economics and basic common sense doesn't add up when Zika is being transmitted in the continental United States.  This  is far more realistic then what you're talking about from a financial standpoint.

 

Wish this was a poll.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

41 minutes ago, Xameil said:

 How do you know that the mosquito...doesn't keep a much worse organism in check?

 

They do, see my earlier post 

54 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

This is the kind of brilliant insight I was looking for when I started the thread.

Pack it up folks.

First world perspective really. 

"Don't mess with nature!!!" - while "nature" (****ing mosquitos FFS) devastates the lives of millions of people in developing and underdeveloped countries.

My apologies for being glib; I appreciate that I see these kinds of things differently than most.

I am a paleontologist, I study extinction for a living (usually natural, but occasionally human induced).

Allow me to dispel some nonsense being spewed by both sides here.

1) Humans have caused the extinction of a great many species at this point. If you're interested, I can post many links documenting that we are currently in a 6th mass extinction, comparable to the End Cretaceous extinction caused by the impact in Yucatan. These extinctions range from prehistoric (mammoths, and many other mega fauna) to what we would call modern (Tasmanian tiger, Chinese River dolphin, etc.). Overwhelmingly, I would say the most accurate statement is that we have NO IDEA how human driven extinction affects an environment.

However:

2) It certainly appears at least somewhat true that the removal of any one species is typically not "that" bad. For example, most people are unaware that only a few centuries ago North America was home to the Passenger Pigeon. The bird is thought to have numbered over a BILLION. They are said to have been so numerous that rich aristocrats would keep parisols to protect from the feces when they would fly over as it could take hours for them to pass. Most would argue that North America is "fine" today without them.

 

I think that what is important to remember is that we really don't have a 1st data point in many of these cases. We haven't actively been studying extinctions in this way for that long. Paleontology as a field is several centuries old, but it's only recently that we're turned our attention to understanding human driven extinction and married it with ecology to comprehend the ramifications. The truth is, it is impossible to model how an ecosystem reacts to any one cog going missing. And remember, concern for ecosystems has only really been around since the late 80s, and only really became commonplace with Jurassic Park's "Life finds a way".

 

I've "seen" a lot of species come and go (figuratively, in the halls of many natural history museums). I don't believe any one species is inherently species. For example, I don't see a compelling reason to "SAVE THE PANDAS" just because they're cute. Their a carnivorous animal that evolved to eat one very specific plant that they now struggle to find and they can't even fall back to their traditional diet. That, and they apparently have a complete disdain for ****ing. I don't care that they're cute. But I also think it's dangerous to assume that "modern science can't seem to see how this is bad" as being "good enough" to roll with it. Modern science didn't understand the effects of chemical radiation or fossil fuels either.

[No Excuses]

15 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I am a paleontologist, I study extinction for a living (usually natural, but occasionally human induced).

I am a neuroscientist trained in invertebrate biology and organisms. There is fairly widespread consensus derived from many studies that mosquitos are really not that important, where removing them from the ecosystem will cause even moderate damage to humans. On the other hand, they are a cause for a great deal of human suffering.

15 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

Modern science didn't understand the effects of chemical radiation or fossil fuels either.

And I really don't like this line of reasoning because it creates a false equivalency. The role of mosquitos in the ecosystem isn't some great unknown and we have models with reliable data sets to see just how important their role in the ecosystem really is (it doesn't seem to be that important).

I am going to repost this quote from the Nature article I posted, which summarizes where we currently stand in the field:

Quote

Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the 'collateral damage' felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn't buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito's case. It is the limitations of mosquito-killing methods, not the limitations of intent, that make a world without mosquitoes unlikely.

 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I am a neuroscientist trained in invertebrate biology and organisms. There is fairly widespread consensus derived from many studies that mosquitos are really not that important, where removing them from the ecosystem will cause even moderate damage to humans. On the other hand, they are a cause for a great deal of human suffering.

And I really don't like this line of reasoning because it creates a false equivalency. The role of mosquitos in the ecosystem isn't some great unknown and we have models with reliable data sets to see just how important their role in the ecosystem really is (it doesn't seem to be that important).

I am going to repost this quote from the Nature article I posted, which summarizes where we currently stand in the field:

 

All good stuff. Again, I didn't mean to be so glib with my original post (rather, I meant it to be reflectively amusing rather than imply a stance).

Like I said, I don't believe a species is special for its own sake. I think that, in general, preserving diversity is a great deal more important than preserving any one species over another. 

It may sound like an oxymoron, but I believe that all life is valuable, but no one species is that valuable. That's because I think the value is in the diversity. I could definitely be convinced that mosquitos wouldn't be missed (though I'm not sure I have been convinced they should be eradicated).

[Predicto]

1 hour ago, Xameil said:

My point is, we as a people are very short sighted. You don't see a reason for them, I don't see a reason for them, but they exist for a reason.

 

You could say the exact same thing about the smallpox or bubonic plague bacilli.   They are both living organisms.

The thing is, nothing in nature exists "for a reason," not from a biological point of view.    Things exist and reproduce and adapt into new things sometimes and some species die out and it has gone on for billions of years.   The trilobites appeared 500 million years ago and disappeared about 250 million years ago.  They only purpose they had back then was to survive and reproduce at the expense of everything else that lived then.   Just like the mosquito.

Now you are absolutely correct that there can be massive unintended consequences in taking actions like this and it is really important to understand that as best we can and be extremely cautious.   Nevertheless, there is absolutely no reason to automatically assume that the small handful of mosquito species that spread deadly diseases are necessarily, vital, irreplaceable part of any ecosystem, or that eradicating them would be a negative thing, any more than eradicating smallpox would be.   

[Xameil]

Slippery slope.....

Since we are eradicating things that annoy us because we cant be inconvenienced to take extra measures....let's kill ticks and fleas as well.

Oh black widow, brown recluse spiders serve no real purpose either. Eradicate them.

Cobras? No purpose....kill em all.

Great white sharks...all they do is eat and breed. Kill em all because they attack humans...

The list can go on and on. 

You may say.....no that would never happen...look at history...it can and would.