Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations • Hacker News Board

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#81

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 1:00 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #74

michaelkeenan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

To say it's a political problem is to say that you can solve all famine just by just changing over to democracy which simply isn't the case (although it would help!). That's an error in causation. What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy (e.g. a strong, educated middle class) also tend…

What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy

Yes. More important than democracy itself is a strong system of property rights and a functional market (these are things that tend to be present in democracies, hence the confusion).

The problem in Africa is frequently that property rights are not respected, so warlords and gangsters are able to confiscate the food and sell it themselves, or dole it out to their minions.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#82

Post by nate_meurer » Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 2:03 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #76

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:…

The reason Americans are currently able to cope with a DDT ban is mostly because the ban only went into effect after malaria had been effectively eradicated. Ban it a few decades earlier, and people would not be "coping", they'd be getting sick as hell.

You're using some pretty vague phrasing here. People still get "sick as hell" from West Nile, but I don't often hear that used as an excuse to start fogging the streets again.

DDT was only one part of the U.S.'s efforts against malaria, and it is the other mitigations that have provided lasting relief; notice that DDT has now been restricted in the U.S. for over forty years, and malaria continues to be a non-issue in this country.

The pyrethroids that we now use, which are both more effective as knock-down agents and less persistent in the the environment, were first developed in the 60s. If we had restricted DDT use in open air earlier, as we should have, smart money says that development of alternatives would have accelerated. The TVA would have continued with the main parts of the malaria program -- water management, urban planning, maybe even in-home spraying (which is where DDT is most effective anyway). The U.S would still be here, and you'd still not be getting sick as hell from malaria.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#83

Post by nate_meurer » Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 2:11 PM UTC

jcampbell1 wrote: post #78

nate_meurer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

> I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species. You must see the irony in that statement. The whole point is to eradicate Plasmodium vivax, and five other species from the earth.

The goal is to eradicate malaria in humans. No one claims that we can extinct any plasmodium as a species, and no one cares.

In addition, there's a bit of a difference between a microbial parasite and mosquitoes, with regard to ecological roles that benefit humans. I'm sure you can see the difference.

You seem to prefer pot-shots to reasoned defences your statements. I'm not surprised; I do occasionally hear statements like "Let's start spraying DDT from planes and dumping oil on wetlands" from people without the means or will to support them, but I am disappointed to hear it on HN.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#84

Post by burgerbrain » Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 7:08 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #82

burgerbrain wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason Americans are currently able to cope with a DDT ban is mostly because the ban only went into effect after malaria had been effectively eradicated. Ban it a few decades earlier, and people would not be "coping", they'd be getting sick as hell.

You're using some pretty vague phrasing here. People still get "sick as hell" from West Nile, but I don't often hear that used as an excuse to start fogging the streets again. DDT was only one part of the U.S.'s efforts against malaria, and it is the other mitigations that have provided lasting relief; notice that DDT has now been restricted in the U.S. for over forty years, and malaria continues to be a non-issue in…

By today, 2011, it is likely that malaria would still be largely eradicated. But had DDT been prematurely banned there undoubtedly would have been an uptick in malaria outbreaks. I suggest you spend some time researching the extent of a roll DDT actually played.

All of this is silly anyway. Eagles have made a comeback, so who cares what happened in the past? Seems to me everything worked out pretty well.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#85

Post by nasmorn » Thu, Sep 29, 2011, 10:13 AM UTC

mun2mun wrote: post #43

Dove wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but mosquitoes don't travel so far, it is only necessary to kill them in already inhabited areas. Especially in cities since that is were increasingly most of the population is.

We don't have to kill 90% of mosquitoes on earth just 90% around major cities.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#86

Post by jalanco » Sun, Oct 02, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #64

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!

Your certainty is impressive. If only the natural world were so.