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

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#51

Post by nate_meurer »

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…

> "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: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net.

> "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands"

Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#52

Post by Dove »

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.

Of course. That's why it makes sense to do things on a small scale before doing them on a large scale, and to act slowly.

If there are regions that need mosquitoes or effects that manifest over decades, we can correct mistakes -- or at least, damage will be limited locally.

It's not that meddling in a complex system is impossible. It's just that you need to proceed at a scale and speed your current understanding justifies.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#53

Post by moe »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #47
moe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 us.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#54

Post by jcampbell1 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #51
jcampbell1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "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 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#55

Post by CWuestefeld »

moe wrote: post #53
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…

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 assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#56

Post by Steko »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #47
moe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#57

Post by mhb »

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.

When their children have a higher probability of living, parents will have fewer since it is more likely that the ones they have will be alive to support the parents.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#58

Post by mhb »

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...

When their children have a higher probability of living, parents will have fewer since it is more likely that the ones they have will be alive to support the parents.

Re: Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations

#60

Post by guelo »

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…

According to the EPA "technical boric acid is practically nontoxic to birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates, and relatively nontoxic to beneficial insects." http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf
Post reply on HN