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

Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#41

Post by Dove »

0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

But every time there is a large scale intervention like this . . .

We could try scaling slower. Say, eradicating mosquitos one 100 square mile block at a time, over the course of a century.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#42

Post by mun2mun »

Terretta wrote: post #30
sliverstorm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the conclusions that article draws. It spends 90% of it's time talking about how important mosquitos are, and then says "but that doesn't matter". I also think it's pretty ridiculous to assume some other insect will just fill in the gap before we wipe out untold numbers of plants and animals.

This link was cited twice here, both times using the conclusion from the article's subhead: "Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang." But I agree with you -- careful reading of the article itself suggests otherwise. For example, "Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true el…

Yes, man made change of ecosystems DO have a serious impact on nature. Check out feral cat control example in Australia http://www.convictcreations.com/animals/feralcat.htm .

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#43

Post by mun2mun »

Dove wrote: post #41
0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

But every time there is a large scale intervention like this . . . We could try scaling slower. Say, eradicating mosquitos one 100 square mile block at a time, over the course of a century.

It is not that easy. Ecosystem is different in areas. Who knows there is an ecosystem based around mosquitoes. For example small birds and fish are dependent on mosquitoes egg. Other big animals dependent on these birds and fish. Suddenly destroying mosquitoes without examining the ecosystem in the area may cause huge bad impact.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#44

Post by jcampbell1 »

0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time.

It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine as a compound to wage war against malaria.

If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you? I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands, and gassed DDT all over human populated areas. I'd tell them to do it again.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#45

Post by ced »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #44
0x12 wrote: post #15

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic. But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside. DDT looked pretty good…

> DDT looked pretty good once upon a time. It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine…

It is completely non-toxic to humans

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health:

DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World Health Organization (WHO)

The evidence on Wiki is mixed. Maybe it makes sense to use it for malaria, but there are also other solutions that might have better cost/benefit.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#46

Post by mun2mun »

relix wrote: post #2

Perfect way to breed resistant mosquitos.

You are absolutely right. Every test results like this don't focus on other 10% that survived the test. Same is true for cockroaches, rats too. Animals with high breeding rate can be controlled but not eradicated that easily.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#47

Post by CWuestefeld »

moe wrote: post #32
gerggerg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the major difference between this attempt at species destruction and other previous attempts is the massive amount of human disease and death already perpetrated by the clumsy little biters. It comes down to determining whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. or trying to kill off mosquitoes. Wikipedia claims that malaria alone cause…

whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. One could argue that in the light of human overpopulation it might not be wise to remove one of our last natural predators. A cynical stance, for sure, and it gets only more cynical when you consider that we might be trading mosquito-deaths for starvation-deaths here...

in the light of human overpopulation

Malthus might make that argument, but others, like Julian Simon, would say quite the opposite.

The Malthusian theory is that we've only got a certain amount of arable land, and thus can only support a finite number of people. Once we hit that maximum population, mankind stagnates at that point.

The competing theory -- and the one that has proven through history to be correct -- is that the most important resource, the one that outweighs all others, is the human mind. The more people we have, the more creativity we can bring to bear on a problem.

Thus, the problem of agriculture has been largely solved. Humans have invented irrigation, terracing, crop rotation, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation. We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#48

Post by cpeterso »

The insects will win in the end. They are too numerous and reproduce so rapidly that they can out-evolve humans.

Well, it's a fun though experiment, at least. :)

In the The Hellstrom Chronicle, a 1971 Academy Award winning quasi-documentary/science fiction/horror film, a fictitious scientist called Dr. Nils Hellstrom presents scientific-sounding theories that insects will ultimately win the fight for survival on planet Earth because of their adaptability and ability to reproduce rapidly. The human race will lose this fight largely because of excessive individualism.

The film provided the inspiration for Frank Herbert's science fiction novel Hellstrom's Hive.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Hellstrom...

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#49

Post by jalanco »

I welcome the death of all mosquitoes. But correct me if I'm wrong: 1. Mosquitoes are the greatest killer of people in Africa. 2. When mosquitoes stop killing people, the population will increase. 3. There will be less food to go around, and starvation will increase. 4. Therefore, food must be increased as mosquitoes are eradicated to prevent this consequence.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#50

Post by nate_meurer »

paganel wrote: post #25
nate_meurer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? What previous attempts at species destruction are you referring to?

> Huh? What previous attempts at species destruction are you referring to? This one, maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ?

I don't think so, since that too was ultimately aimed at preventing human casualties.

gerggerg is claiming there's a big difference between this and previous deliberate attempts to wipe out a whole species. I'm asking, what are those previous attempts? I can think of none for which human welfare wasn't the main selling point.

What I'm ultimately doing is disagreeing with the gerggerg; I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species.

Post reply on HN