Eradicating Earth’s Mosquitoes to Fight Disease Is Probably a Bad Idea

Post by crusso » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 12:44 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #17

the article keeps conflating the idea of eradicating human-disease-causing mosquitoes with eradicating all mosquitoes. Presumably the strategy of genetically sterilizing male mosquitoes, for example, would only work for aegypti . The article itself says, "there are thousands of different mosquito species found across the planet, and relatively few of them impact human health" So eradicating human-threat mosquitoes ma…

Post by soft_dev_person » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 12:58 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #18

soft_dev_person wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "how" is more important. Genetic modification sounds awesome, and really dangerous. If it's not just right, or if the potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is above zero, I think we risk too much regardless of the benefits. I.e. please be completely certain that the GM offspring mating with female individuals will not result in some other side effect...

> if the potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is above zero The potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is 100%, GM or no. How do you think species evolve?

Post by rubidium » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 1:01 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #21

dnautics wrote: post #17

the article keeps conflating the idea of eradicating human-disease-causing mosquitoes with eradicating all mosquitoes. Presumably the strategy of genetically sterilizing male mosquitoes, for example, would only work for aegypti . The article itself says, "there are thousands of different mosquito species found across the planet, and relatively few of them impact human health" So eradicating human-threat mosquitoes ma…

On HN several times (that I've observed), this issue has come up and the starting point of the discussion acknowledges the fact that "mosquito" is not just a single species. And we're mostly all just lay people on the subject who can use google. It's disappointing to see an ostensibly researched article not even approach our remedial level. I wonder why anyone would upvote it.

Post by crusso » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #25

crusso wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HN several times (that I've observed), this issue has come up and the starting point of the discussion acknowledges the fact that "mosquito" is not just a single species. And we're mostly all just lay people on the subject who can use google. It's disappointing to see an ostensibly researched article not even approach our remedial level. I wonder why anyone would upvote it.

use the Flag button on article's like this. If you see articles getting upvotes, and you read the article and think "this is a crappy, poorly written article and a waste of all of our time", Flag it.

Post by marcosdumay » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

soft_dev_person wrote: post #22

ghshephard wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than movies, do we have any evidence that "GM offspring" (whatever that means, turns out defining "GM" is not as straightforward as one might suspect), are, in any way more likely to be dangerous than plain, vanilla, two-mosquitoes having babies offspring? Because, here's the thing - we do know the implications of letting these mosquitoes live. 100s of thousands of people a year die. Every Year.

Do we have any evidence that it won't? If you believe the Monsanto GM corn documentaries, releasing GM into the wild may have bad effects (intended or otherwise) outside the designated population. Plants are obviously not the same as insects, but I would prefer to err on the safe(r) side. Edit: Also, a known bad is often better than an unknown.