Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

csiro.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 285 posts

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

#271

Post by JackCh »

eanzenberg wrote: post #237
JackCh wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of human deaths isn't very significant considering that despite that the human population is still exploding at an unsustainable rate that will cause incredible environmental destruction if left unchecked. Far from being threatened with extinction, our present course will cause the extinction of countless other forms of life. And in response to that, you propose that we deliberately drive even more species to ex…

Its easy to want lower human mortality when you’ve already benefited from greatly increased human mortality due to scientific progress.

It's easy to ignore the destruction of the environment if all you care about is optimizing for the human race at the expense of all other species.

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

#272

Post by JackCh »

jessaustin wrote: post #208
JackCh wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many sharks, plus bycatch, for no rational reason at all. Australian politicians vilify the animals and demand even more be killed. It's wholly irrational, as is your characterization of the sharks "menacing" the beach simply by living in their natural environment. Sharks aren't menacing the beach, the Australian government is menacing the sharks. > "They're just sharks." It is this sort of shitty attitude that will…

Sharks are fish. I personally have eaten more than 50 fish already this year. And congratulations. You have entirely trolled me. Not even Australians are that goofy about fish.

Most people outside of Australia recognize that the Australian shark culls are dumb emotional reactions to a non-problem. Shark culls are an international embarrassment for Australia.

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

#273

Post by JackCh »

luma wrote: post #262
JackCh wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of human deaths isn't very significant considering that despite that the human population is still exploding at an unsustainable rate that will cause incredible environmental destruction if left unchecked. Far from being threatened with extinction, our present course will cause the extinction of countless other forms of life. And in response to that, you propose that we deliberately drive even more species to ex…

[flagged]

The only genocide being proposed in this thread is the mass extermination of mosquitoes.

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

#274

Post by dang »

JackCh wrote: post #188
luma wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Half of human deaths isn't very significant considering that despite that the human population is still exploding at an unsustainable rate that will cause incredible environmental destruction if left unchecked. Far from being threatened with extinction, our present course will cause the extinction of countless other forms of life. And in response to that, you propose that we deliberately drive even more species to ex…

Please don't do this kind of flamewar on HN. They're all the same and all off topic here. Ditto for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17502054.

You lowered the discussion significantly by taking it in an inflammatory direction, yielding flamey responses, which you then fed. I don't think you were trolling on purpose, but it has much the same effect. We're trying to avoid that, please don't post that way here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#275

Post by dang »

mjburgess wrote: post #253
BurningFrog wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare to see someone state so plainly that they just don't care about human life. It makes it clear that I have no common ground for this kind of discussion with that person.

[flagged]

Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? This is a significant step to the worse in what was already a terrible subthread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#276

Post by NamTaf »

bko wrote: post #258
NamTaf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more a reflection on the fact that our governments have successively cut CSIRO's funding again and again despite their demonstrated return on investment and notable achievements.

Really? It seems pretty steady although it has ticked down slightly as a percentage of gdp since 2012. And looking at spending as a percentage of gdp is a bit misleading, as funding may increase but not at the same pace as gdp growth. I think a more meaningful measure would be real dollars. CSIRO funding over time 2012-2013 733.8 2013-2014 778.2 2014-2015 745.3 2015-2016 750.3 Do you think that high extra 28mm to att…

Thanks for pointing that out and correcting me. I'd not followed it personally since the Abbott prime-minstership and didn't realise that Turnbull had actually reversed the inital plan to cut $115m over 5 years. The first year of that was the ~30m reduction in 2014-15 that your data shows. I hope the 2016-17 figure continues that trend.

Again, thanks for fact-checking me. I appreciate the correction!

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

#277

Post by enneff »

hydrox24 wrote: post #234
BigJono wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are and always have been a bunch of anti-intellectual religious zealots. I'm not sure what anyone was expecting. There's still too many people drinking the kool-aid to say it now, but I'd be very surprised if by 2050, Tony Abbott isn't considered the worst PM in Australian history.

> "anti-intellectual religious zealots" This is a ridiculous thing to say. Curtin, Hawke, and Gillard all left the faiths they were raised in, and the first two Prime Ministers were Spiritualist (no dogma, not really zealots) and Unitarian (no supernatural belief) respectively. Australia is not a country in which accusations of zealotry can be fairly levelled. If you'll allow me to ignore the non-sequiter about Abbot…

I think they were referring to the previous two Coalition governments. Abbott was certainly a religious zealot.

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

#278

Post by BurningFrog »

JackCh wrote: post #269
BurningFrog wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rare to see someone state so plainly that they just don't care about human life. It makes it clear that I have no common ground for this kind of discussion with that person.

Humanity is important but humanity is not currently being threatened. If humanity were actually being threatened I would support the eradication of any species threatening it.

OK, you care about humanity as a species.

But apparently not about thousands or millions of individual humans dying.

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

#279

Post by drb91 »

kingofhdds wrote: post #249
drb91 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public has no control over the incentives of private corporations, so their goals could change at any time.

This argument implies the public controls gov. organizations/departments which is in most cases not true (unless there's some scandal to attract attention).

Well, it’s certainly more true than having any control over a corporation.

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

#280

Post by pbhjpbhj »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #248
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the negative outcomes? Presumably we leave a niche for other mosquito or insect species to prosper in, which species will they be. Which species predate the mosquitoes we're eliminating, or how do those particular species adapt the environment and so impact the local eco-system? If we've not found any negatives then I imagine we've not tried very hard. Australia is kinda synonymous with species-wide populati…

This question comes up every time something like this makes the news, and in general the people qualified to have opinions are generally either ambivalent or believe the pros outweigh the cons. One article: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

Your source appears to support the destruction of the whole Culicidae family; and doesn't appear to care if that puts the Carmargue martens, as an example, below replacement levels of reproduction.

>"They don't occupy an unassailable niche in the environment," says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over."

Is that entomologist in the group you're allowing to have opinions? Because " could be better or worse" doesn't appear terribly enlightened.

We've regretted destruction of killer species before (I'm thinking of the deforestation that follows wolf annihilation and the desire by some to reintroduce wolves to Scotland); we should be very careful.

IMO non-experts can add a needed objectivity to rational consideration that is often difficult for experts to tap in to.

That all said, and not that anyone cares, but I support targeted species-level eradication tests.

(Also TIL Arctic mosquitoes.)

Post reply on HN