41–50 of 122 posts
Frightening question: what if this technology could be targeted not at species, but at races?
You mean humans? AFAIK human "races" are largely superficial biologically - there are some correlations, but weaker than the variability between individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.
Perhaps this is observational bias from your part? Human brain detects negatives far easier than positives.
The world is a complex place, and any action that has externalities likely creates both negative and positive ones - and for some people even same effects can be negative for some and positive for others.
Yes, bad things can happen for anyone. Generally, though, I would say deeds of compassion breed compassion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Colour of skin, epicanthic fold, and a thousand more designating traits of race are biologically encoded in DNA.
They aren’t, however, so uniform that an attack based on presence or absence of a handful of polymorphisms together could form anything like a perfect classifier and therefore target. Race and genetics are related, but not so closely as to facilitate this.
ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea
We ought to think twice before expediting this
The cascade of known, expected and unexpected comsequences from wiping mosquitoes could be enough to distroy the economy of entire countries.
And is so easy to think in believable sceneries that is astonishing to see people repeating again the mantra that nothing is proved and nothing will happen.
Wiping mosquitoes in Africa could affect profoundly Europe, for example.
The same birds that save harvests in Europe each year, pass the winter in Africa. Finding some alternative food, here and there, is not the same as "finding enough fuel to not die in the return". Do we really want to start an experiment that could lead to Europe losing decens of insectivorous birds overnight and episodes of famine in many points of Europe?
Or... What if malaria strikes back being forced to jump to the next species of mosquito available, those able to stand cold temperatures that can be found in Scottland or Swedden?
No more roses with thorns (they cause thumb injuries), sweet smelling stink bugs, glow in the dark pets.
Can't imagine what could go wrong. Someone needs to be writing the movie plot right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it. But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediate…
> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it. But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some. I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediate…
> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished. We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
It's one of the tenets of physics, every action has an equal reaction. This isn't really in dispute