Live data from Hacker News

US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

nature.com

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#41
post #5

This sounds like the wolbachia release of aedes egyptai mosquitoes that verily or w/e did in socal earlier in the year. Not so frightening, since it's just a sterilization technique using existing bacteria.

You are correct. MosquitoMate (mentioned in TFA) is working with Verily's Debug: https://blog.verily.com/2017/07/debug-fresno-our-first-us-fi....

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#42
post #39

> Suppressing the mosquito population of an entire city is likely to require the weekly production of millions of these mosquitoes. To reach that level, Dobson’s company must find a way to efficiently separate male mosquitoes from females. The company’s technicians now separate them both by hand and mechanically, Sounds like a potential use-case for that mosquito zapping laser[0], which I've heard can target by gende…

Interesting. You could probably simply "kill" the ones you don't need in a particular batch.

I don't think I've ever considered "killing" the optimum strategy for sorting before.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#44
post #2

This sounds like one of those headlines that shows up before one of those movies like 28-days later. I'm all for trying to fight disease but how deeply do we actually understand what we're trying to solve. How do we know that we actually aren't going to make things worse down the road?

http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…

Wouldn't having millions of people not dying every year cause problems of its own?

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#45

Mao started a campaign to kill all sparrows because they eat the "grain of the people". Well, right after that, insects started proliferating, so then they had to exterminate all of them. Among the insects killed, pollinators died. So that region now looks completely Marsformed and now all agriculture required pollination by hand . Killing a species can start a slippery slope.

I've heard this story before. I think it was on a documentary about the source of General Tso's Chicken (and I'm not making a joke), but I don't recall for sure... Do you have a reference?

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#47
post #39

> Suppressing the mosquito population of an entire city is likely to require the weekly production of millions of these mosquitoes. To reach that level, Dobson’s company must find a way to efficiently separate male mosquitoes from females. The company’s technicians now separate them both by hand and mechanically, Sounds like a potential use-case for that mosquito zapping laser[0], which I've heard can target by gende…

Interesting. You could probably simply "kill" the ones you don't need in a particular batch. I don't think I've ever considered "killing" the optimum strategy for sorting before.

Samething is done with chickens for egg production. It's barberic, the males are ground up.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…

Eliminating an insect that has been here for millions of years, part of the food chain, helping thousands of micro-organism to mix DNA and be exposed to various conditions, thus helping evolution... That won't cause a major issue ? Sure ? 100% Safe ? You swear ? No backies in case of totally destroying our environment like we always do ? We are such an arrogant specie.

This sounds almost like a Creationist argument, like there is some greater purpose behind the existence of all species, or that each species is some kind of keystone keeping the whole spectrum of life together. I happen to believe that nature is not necessarily intelligent or benevolent. Not everything that is produced by natural selection is by definition good for the planet (or necessarily bad either).

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eliminating an insect that has been here for millions of years, part of the food chain, helping thousands of micro-organism to mix DNA and be exposed to various conditions, thus helping evolution... That won't cause a major issue ? Sure ? 100% Safe ? You swear ? No backies in case of totally destroying our environment like we always do ? We are such an arrogant specie.

You're taking a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach, but the reality is that it is broken. Mosquitos kill millions.

Could be a natural selection/control process tho.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#50
post #40
post #2

This sounds like one of those headlines that shows up before one of those movies like 28-days later. I'm all for trying to fight disease but how deeply do we actually understand what we're trying to solve. How do we know that we actually aren't going to make things worse down the road?

Something like 30 out of the 500 anopheles species are capable of carrying malaria. Only 2 of those 30 bite humans: A. gambiae and A. funestus . Eradicating those two would be sufficient and another species, one that doesn't bite humans, would take over the rest of their niche. "Bites humans" is not a sufficiently beneficial adaptation to be a game-changer. We can eliminate that trait and precisely that trait with su…

It's fine being careful but this argument devolves all too often into some kind of religious nature worship. We are the dominant species on this planet. Animals and plant life - nature - have to conform to our wishes. Not the other way around.
Post reply on HN