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

US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#91

Post by theptip »

jordan801 wrote: post #12
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.who.int/whr/1996/media_centre/executive_summary1/... Mosquitoes are responsible for millions of deaths every year, and hundreds of millions of infections often with severe disability. We understand stuff pretty deeply now. According to https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html eliminating mosquitoes would not cause major ecological issues. So when you have millions of people dying every yea…

I'm excited to see what this does to the food chain. Will it collapse? Will it kill billions? Find out on the next episode of humans trying to manipulate everything.

The problem with this argument is that it's throwing out some big numbers and bad outcomes, without making any attempt to quantify the likelihood of those outcomes.

Without quantification, this position is basically unfalsifiable. Plus, there's a trivial contrapositive that is just as valid: "what if allowing mosquitoes to live causes an outbreak of a new disease that is transmitted by mosquitoes and kills billions?". Sure, that could also happen. As with total food-chain collapse from reduction of population of a non-keystone species, it seems very unlikely. Contrast that against the almost-certain probability that 0.5m will die next year (0.1 Holocausts per year, or one Holocaust per decade) from malaria.

If we don't attach a probability to these outcomes there's no way of having any sort of meaningful conversation about them.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#92

Post by sametmax »

saulrh wrote: post #86
sametmax wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the problem is the state of the third world. No mosquitoes. Let's fix that instead of killing things. Especially since we are mostly responsible.

If you know of a proposal for solving the third world that's as cheap, fast, effective, reliable, and safe as - that has comparable expected value to - killing human-biting malaria-carrying mosquitoes, that's great ! Please, PLEASE share it and work toward its execution! Me, I say kill the mosquitoes. (Although, honestly, even if you did have such a plan, I'd still say kill the mosquitoes in addition : https://news.y…

> cheap, fast, effective, reliable, and safe

You can only maybe guaranty fast.

And the unknown is huge on this one. Just like the potential horrible consequences.

The way you talk scares me a lot. I feel like I'm in front of the stereotypical american gun owner in tv shows.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#93

Post by anonacct37 »

davidmr wrote: post #64
anonacct37 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many planets do we have? By my count it's one. What's our track record on changing ecosystems to fix problems without creating worse problems? Zero out of how many? I hate mosquito too, and they are probably useless, but no good engineer makes changes without a backup and a tested rollback strategy, where's our backup?

When’s the last time anyone died of smallpox? As a species, we seem demonstrably better off for having arrogantly removed it from the planet.

I wasn't trying to come across as an anti vaccination person. I realize just about everything is related to ecosystem, but what I meant by "changing ecosystems" was specifically related to introducing species and modifying species, not taking medicine.

Rabbits in australia are a pretty famous example, but I can't walk out my door without seeing numerous fails related to introducing plant species.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#94

Post by mikeash »

fhood wrote: post #70
mikeash wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smallpox was made extinct (aside from samples in labs) and as far a I know there haven't been any problems from that.

Sure, but the only possible side affect of eliminating smallpox was increased population growth. Different than introducing an organism who's evolution we don't control into the wild.

On what basis do you claim that this is the only possible side effect?

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#95

Post by notyourday »

junkcollector wrote: post #89
fhood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the only possible side affect of eliminating smallpox was increased population growth. Different than introducing an organism who's evolution we don't control into the wild.

These mosquitoes have undergone induced sterilization. By definition their evolution is completely controlled.

What's the margin of error?

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#97

Post by 4restm »

I'm not sure why people are making a kerfuffle over this, entomologist have used this before to great effect. Cochliomya hominivorax, the primary screwworm fly, was eradicated from the US using very similar methods. Due to this, we do not have to worry about miasis or maggot infestations.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#98

Post by lovehashbrowns »

ftxrcc wrote: post #43

I heavily disagree with this decision from the US gov't. It's incredibly arrogant and selfish for a species to try and modify nature for an evolutionary advantage.

I hope you hate roads, cities, houses, domesticated animals, farming, etc.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#99

Post by fnl »

napa15 wrote: post #50
saulrh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 30 out of the 500 anopheles species are capable of carrying malaria. Only 2 of those 30 bite humans: A. gambiae and A. funestus . Eradicating those two would be sufficient and another species, one that doesn't bite humans, would take over the rest of their niche. "Bites humans" is not a sufficiently beneficial adaptation to be a game-changer. We can eliminate that trait and precisely that trait with su…

It's fine being careful but this argument devolves all too often into some kind of religious nature worship. We are the dominant species on this planet. Animals and plant life - nature - have to conform to our wishes. Not the other way around.

I'd say the life form that dominates this planet are single cellular organisms, i.e., mostly bacteria. They have run this place for billions of years, deciding who gets to stay in symbiosis with them or not and most likely will continue to do so for a few billion more, long after mammals and similar life forms will have disappeared again. They inhabit the entire biosphere, at least 1km below and up to 50km above earth, filling every cubic meter with millions and often billions of them. They can "communicate" (evolve their latest genetic modifications) across the whole planet in a matter of weeks for particularly mission-critical mutations. Every other life-form just passes by.

Re: US government approves 'killer' mosquitoes to fight disease

#100

Post by nerdponx »

4restm wrote: post #97

I'm not sure why people are making a kerfuffle over this, entomologist have used this before to great effect. Cochliomya hominivorax, the primary screwworm fly, was eradicated from the US using very similar methods. Due to this, we do not have to worry about miasis or maggot infestations.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I think part of people's problem with diseases like malaria is that they don't connect it with any kind of visceral fear. The mechanism of death is a little vague -- you get fatigued, you get a fever, and then... you die? OK, I guess.

Rabies is terrifying; you devolve into madness and convulse to death. Botulism is terrifying; you become paralyzed and asphyxiate. Ebola makes you hemorrhage. Tuberculosis can literally destroy your lungs. Smallpox produces horrible painful lesions. Screwworm infestations are just kinda horrifying.

So people see malaria as something bad, but not something scary. Screwworm is scary to even consider, so people jump to agree that, yes, it should be eliminated, nature be damned. Malaria is scary too, but I suspect that it doesn't engender the same physical fear response in most people. Hence the debate about mosquitoes.

Post reply on HN