The examples usually given are more general “messing with the environment”, e.g. Australia’s introduction of Cane Toads, China’s campaigns to eradicate certain pests, or various silly things the Soviet Union did.
As for mosquitos, I don’t mean not just controlling their populations. I’m talking about eradicating them to extinction, e.g. spreading engineered self destruct genes through the population. That is extremely controversial for some reason.
That’s the point of the article: agriculture allowed the Earth to support a vastly larger human population than it could have otherwise, but at a cost.
Personally I’m more optimistic than the author of the article I linked that the median quality of life of a human on Planet Earth will ultimately exceed the median quality of life of a human on an Earth where agriculture had never been developed—in fact I think there’s a good chance that that’s already the case. But I don’t think it’s completely obvious, for reasons the author describes in detail.
Your claim was that it “remains to be seen” (whether agriculture turned out pretty well). I don’t think it stands. Everything has a cost.
I am aware of the Jared Diamond arguments, but note that they are based on comparison between ancient hunter-gatherers and ancient farmers. Contemporary agriculture is a wee bit different—in particular, note the diversity of food it provides, as well as its ability to deliver food out of local season.
The examples usually given are more general “messing with the environment”, e.g. Australia’s introduction of Cane Toads, China’s campaigns to eradicate certain pests, or various silly things the Soviet Union did.
As for mosquitos, I don’t mean not just controlling their populations. I’m talking about eradicating them to extinction, e.g. spreading engineered self destruct genes through the population. That is extremely controversial for some reason.
You know what’s the most radical “messing with the environment” thing that humans ever did?
It’s called agriculture.
I think it turned out pretty well.
And that reason is unclear to you?
Well, that remains to be seen.
No, I don’t think it remains to be seen.
How large a human population can Earth support without agriculture, do you think?
That’s the point of the article: agriculture allowed the Earth to support a vastly larger human population than it could have otherwise, but at a cost.
Personally I’m more optimistic than the author of the article I linked that the median quality of life of a human on Planet Earth will ultimately exceed the median quality of life of a human on an Earth where agriculture had never been developed—in fact I think there’s a good chance that that’s already the case. But I don’t think it’s completely obvious, for reasons the author describes in detail.
Your claim was that it “remains to be seen” (whether agriculture turned out pretty well). I don’t think it stands. Everything has a cost.
I am aware of the Jared Diamond arguments, but note that they are based on comparison between ancient hunter-gatherers and ancient farmers. Contemporary agriculture is a wee bit different—in particular, note the diversity of food it provides, as well as its ability to deliver food out of local season.