I’m a little cautious about deliberately eliminating a species, even a harmful to humans one. The environment is a complex system, and sticking our monkey hands in and pulling leavers can backfire in unpredicted ways.
What other environmental effects do the mosquitoes have? Do they control some other pest species? Are they food for something larger? Does the additional infection vector of mosquito bites significantly improve the general immune system functions of humans or other species bitten by these mosquitoes?
Just some epistemic hygiene: Janet Fang is a journalist, this quote is from a (good) non-scientific article, and the basis for this statement is a collection of (mostly expert) opinions.
I happen to share this opinion, but I don’t think this quote should be given very much weight in anyone’s risk evaluation.
There are 3,500 different kinds of mosquitos and only 100 of them bite humans. To the extent that mosquitos are food for something larger the mosquitos species that don’t bite humans can do the job.
I’m not aware of research showing improved immune systems because of mosquito bites.
the mosquitos species that don’t bite humans can do the job.
How large is the population of the problem species compared to the population of the benign species? There probably won’t be more mosquitoes of the benign species if we eradicate the problem species, unless we start to farm the nice kinds of mosquitoes or something. Also the problem species might behave more predictably to certain predators than than the benign species, and populate certain niches that have certain predators that are used to have them around.
There probably won’t be more mosquitoes of the benign species if we eradicate the problem species, unless we start to farm the nice kinds of mosquitoes or something.
Given that the whole process is about farming mosquitos, producing a few extra of the nice mosquitoes might be worked into the plan for reasonable extra cost.
Replacing the bad mosquitos with nice one’s is also likely to make it harder for bad mosquitos to come back because their niche is filled.
I’m also very cautious about manipulating our complex environment without really understanding what is going on. But in this case, after careful reading of the post (where it is explicitly mentioned to keep healthy mosquitoe populations in the lab until sure) and Wikipedia I tend to agree that this would reduce human suffering without noticable environmental impact. Apparently there even have been studies to the effect:
Studies have shown that this process has been very effective in preventing sleeping sickness in people who live in the area.
I still upvote your post because you do name a few points that are all not addressed by the article. And there could be more which are plausibly problematic.
Sleeping sickness is transmitted by the Tsetse fly, which is not a mosquito. Even ignoring this I’m unsure what the effect on sleeping sickness has to do with environmental impact—this is the target effect of the program, no?
If removing some critical element of an ecosystem has a chance of triggering a complete ecological collapse that, for instance, wipes our human food chain (the way I imagine a total and sudden extinction of pollination agents might), then yes: I don’t want to accidentally kill billions trying to save millions.
I don’t know if this is generally plausible, or if it is a significant concern in this particular situation, but I certainly think it cause to be cautious until I have more information.
That said, lives are being lost, right now, while we’re being cautious.
I personally rate the probability of catastrophic negative effects of this action as significantly lower than the probability of any negative effects, and the probability of no negative effects.
I am also speaking from a position of ignorance, and I don’t like making decisions from ignorance.
I don’t know what the ill effects would be, but the benefit is clear. If more cheap information is readily available, I want it (and some has been provided). If some amount of expensive evidence would increase my estimate of catastrophic effects, and that evidence can be clearly defined and gathered, I want it. If only vague, hard to measure risks remain, I say do it.
Well, three out four parts of the campaign went well. We could start with a pilot program in a limited area to see if the pest being eliminated is more like sparrows. If it is, we stop it and the sparrows repopulate the region. If it isn’t we expand.
Humans and domesticated animals make up roughly 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. I were looking for to effectively minimize humans ecological impact, mosquitos would not be where I would begin.
I’m a little cautious about deliberately eliminating a species, even a harmful to humans one. The environment is a complex system, and sticking our monkey hands in and pulling leavers can backfire in unpredicted ways.
What other environmental effects do the mosquitoes have? Do they control some other pest species? Are they food for something larger? Does the additional infection vector of mosquito bites significantly improve the general immune system functions of humans or other species bitten by these mosquitoes?
This type of objection, more than the financial cost, would be the main obstacle to overcome.
— “A world without mosquitoes”
(Louie links that in his post, but it’s only one link out of 14, so I am rescuing it.)
Just some epistemic hygiene: Janet Fang is a journalist, this quote is from a (good) non-scientific article, and the basis for this statement is a collection of (mostly expert) opinions.
I happen to share this opinion, but I don’t think this quote should be given very much weight in anyone’s risk evaluation.
There are 3,500 different kinds of mosquitos and only 100 of them bite humans. To the extent that mosquitos are food for something larger the mosquitos species that don’t bite humans can do the job.
I’m not aware of research showing improved immune systems because of mosquito bites.
How large is the population of the problem species compared to the population of the benign species? There probably won’t be more mosquitoes of the benign species if we eradicate the problem species, unless we start to farm the nice kinds of mosquitoes or something. Also the problem species might behave more predictably to certain predators than than the benign species, and populate certain niches that have certain predators that are used to have them around.
Given that the whole process is about farming mosquitos, producing a few extra of the nice mosquitoes might be worked into the plan for reasonable extra cost.
Replacing the bad mosquitos with nice one’s is also likely to make it harder for bad mosquitos to come back because their niche is filled.
I’m also very cautious about manipulating our complex environment without really understanding what is going on. But in this case, after careful reading of the post (where it is explicitly mentioned to keep healthy mosquitoe populations in the lab until sure) and Wikipedia I tend to agree that this would reduce human suffering without noticable environmental impact. Apparently there even have been studies to the effect:
I still upvote your post because you do name a few points that are all not addressed by the article. And there could be more which are plausibly problematic.
Sleeping sickness is transmitted by the Tsetse fly, which is not a mosquito. Even ignoring this I’m unsure what the effect on sleeping sickness has to do with environmental impact—this is the target effect of the program, no?
Are you more than one million human deaths per year of cautious?
If removing some critical element of an ecosystem has a chance of triggering a complete ecological collapse that, for instance, wipes our human food chain (the way I imagine a total and sudden extinction of pollination agents might), then yes: I don’t want to accidentally kill billions trying to save millions.
I don’t know if this is generally plausible, or if it is a significant concern in this particular situation, but I certainly think it cause to be cautious until I have more information.
That said, lives are being lost, right now, while we’re being cautious.
No, I am not.
I personally rate the probability of catastrophic negative effects of this action as significantly lower than the probability of any negative effects, and the probability of no negative effects.
I am also speaking from a position of ignorance, and I don’t like making decisions from ignorance.
I don’t know what the ill effects would be, but the benefit is clear. If more cheap information is readily available, I want it (and some has been provided). If some amount of expensive evidence would increase my estimate of catastrophic effects, and that evidence can be clearly defined and gathered, I want it. If only vague, hard to measure risks remain, I say do it.
Case in point: the Four Pests Campaign.
Well, three out four parts of the campaign went well. We could start with a pilot program in a limited area to see if the pest being eliminated is more like sparrows. If it is, we stop it and the sparrows repopulate the region. If it isn’t we expand.
Humans and domesticated animals make up roughly 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. I were looking for to effectively minimize humans ecological impact, mosquitos would not be where I would begin.