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

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#61

Post by moe »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #55
moe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and the one that has proven through history to be correct Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... 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. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for…

Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... Actually, I've created an alternate universe to serve as a control... Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us. There's a long string of data points supporting this a…

Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here.

Which doesn't change the fact that "proven through history to be correct" is a meaningless claim in this context.

You don't have to be a malthusian to acknowledge that the physical resources of our planet are finite and that our track-record of dealing with similar problems on much smaller scales isn't exactly flawless.

There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )

At least you're adding the winking smiley yourself. ;)

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#62

Post by krosaen »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #12
krosaen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hopefully they'll become resistant by not being attracted to the bait, and as a side effect, no longer attracted to humans?

The bait has nothing to do with the need for blood. It's a food source they need.

right but they're presumably attracted to humans via some mechanism, just saying I hope it's the same mechanism for which they're attracted to the nectar so that if the population becomes resistant to the poison by no longer being drawn in by the nectar, they are also no longer drawn to humans.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#63

Post by ars »

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...

But most people with malaria don't die. Instead they experience malaise and lack of energy (due to anemia). This causes tremendous misery and suffering, keeping entire populations stuck and unable to progress - but alive.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#64

Post by ars »

jalanco wrote: post #49

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.

You are wrong.

They don't kill as much as they cause malaise (from anemia), so people have low energy and grow less food. So mosquitoes cause starvation. Get rid of them and people will grow more food without prompting. You won't have less food to go around - you'll have more!

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#65

Post by michaelkeenan »

Steko wrote: post #56
CWuestefeld wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"proven through history to be correct" Pretty sure you mean partially correct. The wolrd has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. In the long run yes production can potentially keep pace with population but what's more relevant is the population growth rate itself will naturally fall once a certain quality of life is achieved.

> The world has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits.

Famine isn't caused by a lack of resources - it's a political problem. 87 million people died of famine in the 20th century, but none of those were in democracies. Source (though I haven't checked the numbers myself): http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#66

Post by nate_meurer »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #54
nate_meurer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you?" This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same:…

It has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today. What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 mo…

No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease.

DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.e. in manner different from that for which you congratulate our misinformed grandparents.

But perhaps you'd recommend that the third world destroy their wetlands as well (more than they already are). Care to defend that remark, or was that just a cheap drive-by?

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#67

Post by jcampbell1 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #66
jcampbell1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has everything to do with the third world. DDT is the cheapest and longest lasting insecticide. Was used to virtually eradicate malaria in China, and is effective in India where it is still used today. What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 mo…

No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease. DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.…

I am fine with spraying oil on swamp land to eradicate mosquito born illnesses. I can't tell from your comment if you are aware that malaria used to be a problem in the US. It was, and our grandparent's generation solved it. That is what I am congratulating them for.

I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#68

Post by nate_meurer »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #67
nate_meurer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, congratulating your grandparents for fogging their streets with pesticide and destroying wetlands has nothing to do with the struggle against malaria in the third world. Americans do NOT suffer the third world's pain of mosquito borne disease. DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.…

I am fine with spraying oil on swamp land to eradicate mosquito born illnesses. I can't tell from your comment if you are aware that malaria used to be a problem in the US. It was, and our grandparent's generation solved it. That is what I am congratulating them for. I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.

Yes I can see that. But you don't seem to have thought this through very well.

If sprayed promiscuously as the Americans did, how much DDT would even the smallest third world tropical country need to make a dent in malaria rates? How much acreage would have to be oiled (and thus destroyed as a habitat) to do the same? Assuming they could afford it financially, how would they afford the ecological costs? Remember, many of these countries don't have industrialized agriculture to insulate them from damage to native habitats.

And forget oiling wetlands -- that's not how the Americans did it. Americans did most of the work by draining wetlands near populated areas. So tell me how that would work in a country like Nigeria? I'll give you a hint if you need one.

There are many intelligent ways to fight malaria. Exporting some clumsy, ham-fisted methods that Americans rejected forty years ago is not one of them.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#69

Post by goombastic »

keenerd wrote: post #19
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…

On the problematic side, the cheap boric acid solution (pun!) will likely be the most used. And this will be bad. 1) Boric acid will kill any insect that ingests it. 2) If you leave rotting fruit out, every nectar lover will drink it. From experience, this will be at least 50% honeybees. So yeah, it will crash native honeybee populations too. If you are curious and want to see how effective it would be, mix up some b…

I thought about this as well. I am going to leave boric acid laced juice socks out at night. BTW this has worked as a solution for cockroaches terrifically well at my place for the last 20 years.
Post reply on HN