411–420 of 441 posts
Seems like it would be relatively easy to preserve large captive populations of existing mosquito species, then kill everything in the wild. If we notice some tragic consequence, ctrl+z.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard of equivalent 'screwups' described as horrific criminal actions, described as being done by greedy, stupid, and lazy people who should be sent to federal prison; but alas, those were private parties. My point was that catastrophic negligence goes unpunished when committed by a bureaucrat. Horses were native to North America, and existed on the continent before humans arrived; they were probably wiped out…
IANAL and not in the US but legally 'Negligence' is a tort; it's a civil law matter not typically criminal unless it's Criminal Negligence because you actually kill or injure someone, I think. Someone would have to show how the destruction of the horses caused them damages and if no-one owns them because they are feral, who would this be?
Thus, almost nothing is ever done.
Hence, you see epidemics of prosecutorial misconduct, for example. Prosecutors go after people they know (or reasonably suspect) to be innocent, withholding exculpatory evidence, etc., just to score the credit of more convictions. Such people ruining the lives of innocent people are almost never (and I really that - it approaches zero) prosecuted themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem with this idea is that your cell phone exposes your brain to trivial quantities of EM radiation in both absolute and relative terms. If EM in that spectrum had any kind of effect, we'd have seen it long since in people that live near radio masts, people that work with radar units and radio transmitters (military, mostly), people that sleep next to their wifi modems, people working in electrical ge…
Again, you miss the point. The certainty with which you make these statements is the exact same certainty that scientists 50 or 100 years ago used to justify doing all kinds of shit we now know caused unforeseen harm. Don't focus on the one example I gave, focus on that fact that we continually mess with stuff we don't understand, with consequences we can't comprehend. Then 50 years later we just say "we know better…
It's amazing we're not all dead yet, isn't it? messing with everything like we have, vastly extending expected lifespan and years of health...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases are actually a big reason why there is a third world.
Really? How so? (Not attacking ... sincere question). Seems to me that good second-world sanitation might alleviate it. But third world countries lack the sanitation and hence suffer Malaria. Seems the problem is political/social.
Sometimes I wonder if the relentless human intervention in every aspect of nature will create or leave only life that has a value to people, like cows and wheat, or that which can resist domination or destruction by humans, like HIV, treatment-resistant bacteria, and the unassailable cockroach. Perhaps after a period of rapid upheaval, humanity develops the technology to capture and control those super powerful flora…
> create or leave only life that has a value to people There is a Jewish creation story (Rashi, Genesis 1:11) that God told the trees to make their bark (or the wood itself) edible to humans. The trees refused because "if we did that humans would eat all of us, leaving none behind". It seems to me that the trees got it wrong: Plants that are valuable to humans exist in far greater numbers than those that are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest#Logging_in_o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard of equivalent 'screwups' described as horrific criminal actions, described as being done by greedy, stupid, and lazy people who should be sent to federal prison; but alas, those were private parties. My point was that catastrophic negligence goes unpunished when committed by a bureaucrat. Horses were native to North America, and existed on the continent before humans arrived; they were probably wiped out…
I would. The hunting to scarcity of gray wolves led to a boom of deer who ravage crops and woods, carry disease, and create hazards for humans on roadways and when they end up in cities. And look up rates for CWD in your state, and hope it never becomes transmissible to humans. Bison have the same issues with overpopulation and overgrazing, and they're being allowed to roam outside of Yellowstone again soon, which is…
I wouldn't be too concerned about horses when deer are already a much much bigger problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem with this idea is that your cell phone exposes your brain to trivial quantities of EM radiation in both absolute and relative terms. If EM in that spectrum had any kind of effect, we'd have seen it long since in people that live near radio masts, people that work with radar units and radio transmitters (military, mostly), people that sleep next to their wifi modems, people working in electrical ge…
Again, you miss the point. The certainty with which you make these statements is the exact same certainty that scientists 50 or 100 years ago used to justify doing all kinds of shit we now know caused unforeseen harm. Don't focus on the one example I gave, focus on that fact that we continually mess with stuff we don't understand, with consequences we can't comprehend. Then 50 years later we just say "we know better…
But you will provoke people by saying things like this. I have been heavily down voted else in this thread for saying something like this
I guess it is because people have great difficulty in looking from outside their current time frame. For example, people always thing that they are living in "modern times".
We were living in modern times in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, just like we are living in modern times now. People find it hard to comprehend that their times will once be old, and their beliefs and assumptions about the world obsolete, and their scientists proved wrong. It just does not occur to them.
This might be giving some kind of false belief that we know nearly all there is to know, which lead to fallacies like the parent comment. He implies we know all there is to know about the exposure to radiation.
A quote from Mark twain comes to mind.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"
Human beings should learn to be modest. How small we are, and how little we know. Then may be we will proceed with more caution and be less reckless with imposing our will upon the other living things on this planet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem with this idea is that your cell phone exposes your brain to trivial quantities of EM radiation in both absolute and relative terms. If EM in that spectrum had any kind of effect, we'd have seen it long since in people that live near radio masts, people that work with radar units and radio transmitters (military, mostly), people that sleep next to their wifi modems, people working in electrical ge…
Again, you miss the point. The certainty with which you make these statements is the exact same certainty that scientists 50 or 100 years ago used to justify doing all kinds of shit we now know caused unforeseen harm. Don't focus on the one example I gave, focus on that fact that we continually mess with stuff we don't understand, with consequences we can't comprehend. Then 50 years later we just say "we know better…
We (as humanity) do "mess with the stuff" and we (as in scientists) even know exactly where and how much we (as in "political and economic forces") do that. The amount of fossil fuels use is one good example. And having huge nuclear stockpiles ready for launch is another. And we "know better" (as in knowing that the effects won't be desirable for "us") even now, but look how many forces pretend we don't.
Having basic scientific literacy actually matters, otherwise you'll fall worrying for pure distractions, like "you should worry that mobile phones emit radio waves to your brain." No, either forget it, that's pure distraction, or at least, learn a little of physics, you'll benefit from that.
And we don't have to wait 50 years. We already know the exact problems that will be much bigger in 50 years if we don't act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you miss the point. The certainty with which you make these statements is the exact same certainty that scientists 50 or 100 years ago used to justify doing all kinds of shit we now know caused unforeseen harm. Don't focus on the one example I gave, focus on that fact that we continually mess with stuff we don't understand, with consequences we can't comprehend. Then 50 years later we just say "we know better…
Maybe in 2060 we'll discover that NOT radiating our brains was killing us. You can't just arbitrarily guess which things are dangerous -- you have to raise legitimate scientific questions. It's amazing we're not all dead yet, isn't it? messing with everything like we have, vastly extending expected lifespan and years of health...
Tens of thousands of living things that used to call this planet home are extinct thanks to our meddling. I'd say that's proof enough we're badly f'ing things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an Alaskan AND a Floridian: If they wanna auction/raffle off the privilege of throwing the switch I would attempt to give them all my money.
I am pretty much ground zero of where they want to release them down here in the FL Keys and I am all for it. The amount of chemicals they pump out in the summer months is enough to sway me towards the belief that it can not be much if any riskier. When we hear the hum of the mosquito truck we have to yell, to our kids playing outside, to get in the house and stay out of the mist. Most of the other locals are vehemen…
The opposition to the Oxitec project spout the most depressing anti-science nonsense.