Trial wipes out over 80% of Australian disease-spreading mosquito

Post by zavi » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #176

IIRC this is an Australian initiative: the basic work on the application of Walbachia to dengue, the formation of the world mosquito program, it's an initiative grounded in Australian science. yes, you will find "we did it" in China and Brazil and Vietnam and other places: The roots of this work go back to 2011 and before, at Monash University: https://www.monash.edu/industry/success-stories/dengue http://www.elimina…

Post by JackCh » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:52 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #169

JackCh wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said this was new. What concerns me is it being done in the modern era. And not just in the modern era, but backed up by scientists too, which lends it additional credibility. In general, people in this era trust science more than they trust politicians. If a politician tells them something is a good idea, they will distrust that politician if it goes against their gut instinct. But if a scientist tells them…

Eradicating an invasive species that we (inadvertently) introduced in the first place seems more similar to me to wolf rewilding/reintroduction programs than the opposite. We're trying to unwind an earlier intervention.

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:58 AM UTC

luma wrote: post #178

JackCh wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Its important to differentiate b/w the plans of a politician and the plans of research scientists who have done actual work in this area." Not really, because the general public won't take such care with the differentiating. The more scientists deliberately exterminate or cull animals, the more the public will grow accustomed to the idea of humanity taking such an active violent role in the environment. And the mo…

If you're going to weigh the social factors in wiping out the 20-something species of mosquitoes which feed on humans (out of > 3000), I think you need to factor in the possibility that malaria (and thus mosquitos) may be responsible for HALF of human deaths in our history. Half. That's an outrageous number, but Nature suggests it might be true: https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.ht... At what…

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #73

According to the WHO ( http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria ) * Malaria killed 445,000 people in 2016. * Of those, 285,000 were children under the age of 5. * There were 216 million cases of malaria in 2016. That is a large city's worth of children dying every year, and a large country's population having severely reduced productivity. And that is just one mosquito born illness. The guaranteed h…

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 2:15 AM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #22

crusso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have to wipe out all mosquitos in one shot. There are many different species, not all of which transmit the deadly diseases of concern. We can start with less populous species that share their ecological niche with other species that can replace them in the food chain - observe the impact of removing that one species then move on to others as warranted by the results. Answer #2: It's worth the risk. Kill the…

> It's worth the risk Not really. Mosquitoes, both adults and larvae, serve as an important food source for many animals that humans eventually depend on for food. Many types of juvenile fish eat their larvae, for example, juvenile fish that eventually grow up and become a major source of protein for some groups of people.