221–230 of 441 posts
"Zika virus can be spread during sex by a man infected with Zika to his partners."
http://www.cdc.gov/zika/transmission/sexual-transmission.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In principle why should it matter whether a particular species is native or invasive? Regardless of whether a particular species spread to an area naturally or were introduced by humans we have to deal with them as they exist today. And certainly some mosquito species are invasive to the areas where they live now.
The difference is that invasive species are considered harmful to the ecosystem while naturally spread species are considered part of the ecosystem.
watch the will smith movie "I am Legend" where he's the last human alive because scientists made a bold decision like this, then decide if we should do a pre-emptive strike. Or will this be the 12 monkeys (wow, 2nd movie reference) tipping point.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories where scientists meddle with forces beyond their understanding and get burned. That's not evidence of anything except the fact that people enjoy those sorts of stories. See also: http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
People are far more destructive to the environment and have been around for far less longer than the mosquito, which has been here since the beginning.
At least something like a mosquito is honest about its intentions. It wants to have a handy blood meal from you. A human, on the other hand, will engage in varying forms of deceit, deception and then probably fuck your mother behind your back, before they sucks you dry.
Which one would you rather have around? Something to think on next time your get bit by one.
We've done this lots[1] of[2] times[3] when it threatens agriculture, but when it threatens the lives of poor people in third world countries, suddenly we're worried about the ecosystem? There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem,…
The main problem is how do we actually eradicate mosquito's without introducing other severely risks? For example, one of the popular techniques is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes that are sterile. The problem is we don't know what could happen if/when these modified genes spread into the wider environment It's a very serious concern, whether or not eradicating mosquitoes will introduce more severe problems
watch the will smith movie "I am Legend" where he's the last human alive because scientists made a bold decision like this, then decide if we should do a pre-emptive strike. Or will this be the 12 monkeys (wow, 2nd movie reference) tipping point.
We've done this lots[1] of[2] times[3] when it threatens agriculture, but when it threatens the lives of poor people in third world countries, suddenly we're worried about the ecosystem? There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem,…
It's not really an apples to apples comparison. All of those are invasive species, except for the screw fly, which isn't a large part of a biological ecosystem (e.g. a sizeable portion of the Myotis lucifugus diet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even more on point: Which is likely to cause more ecological damgage: 1) Wipe out two (of over 3,500) species of mosquito 2) Spray poisons indiscriminately, wiping out many different species of insect, both mosquitos and non-mosquitos?
Thanks for bringing this up. Since no one's brought this up already, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
Also interesting, I thought Intellectual Ventures was only a patent troll, I didn't know they did actual research work as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that invasive species are considered harmful to the ecosystem while naturally spread species are considered part of the ecosystem.
Who gets to decide what is "harmful" and what isn't? Why is it necessarily better to have one animal species in a certain area rather than another? Valuing native species over invasive species seems like an arbitrary human value judgment. (I don't necessarily disagree with eradicating invasive species, but I've noticed that people often haven't thought it through or considered their biases.)
Typically zoologists, botanists, and other biologists who study local ecosystems and determine the damage done by invasive species.
Construing this as a human concept doesn't make it arbitrary - anthropogenic impact on the environment is important because we rely on our environment for survival as a species. Damage isn't limited to just a less biological diversity, it can and has stretched into agriculture and human production.