

Nature thinks we could safely wipe mosquitoes off the face of the earth. - eegilbert
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

======
tmsh
I am no fan of mosquitoes personally, but pollination is the key thing. Esp.
now with the shortage of bees. There may not seem like a direct link to
humans.

 _Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of
pollinators. Adults depend on nectar for energy (only females of some species
need a meal of blood to get the proteins necessary to lay eggs). Yet
McAllister says that their pollination isn't crucial for crops on which humans
depend._

But mess with one part of the ecosystem and risks that it will affect things
globally go way up. I'm surprised Nature isn't more circumspect about this..

~~~
jimfl
From my experience, there is no shortage of bees-- only honey bees, which are
cultivated as agricultural pollinators and inbred so as to, apparently be less
resistant to disease and parasites.

In my garden last year, no honey bees, but 3 other species of bees all over
the lavender, Rosemary, and other flowers. This year, the honey bees are back,
mostly on the borage, which they love.

------
Jun8
I have often thought the same thing. I have no "moral" or any qualms about
this. If we have eradicated smallpox why not the mosquitos or the AIDS virus.
However, let's not go too fast on this:

First, if you read the article, there's considerable disagreement among the
scientists on what the effects of the disappearance of the mosquitos would be.

Second, fiddling with super-complex systems without having even a rough
estimate of the possible effects may be disasterous. Typical example is
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia>, where success is
mixed.

------
seldo
This seems a spectacularly foolish idea. Believing that we understand the
emergent complexity of any ecosystem to the point that we can predictably
alter it is a fallacy we've repeatedly disproven, and yet this is talking
about altering the ecosystem of the entire planet.

~~~
pkulak
We wipe species off the planet all the time by accident. Sure, there would be
some collateral damage, but you would save millions of _human_ lives a year.

~~~
sorbus
Humans are not necessarily more important than anything else. It's a common
delusion that, because one is human, humans are the most important species.
Basically a more grown-up form of the common belief of children that they are
the center of the universe.

The problem with "collateral damage" is that we don't know what it includes.
It could include humans, for instance, or it could bring the world closer to
humans becoming collateral damage - and we're bringing the world in that
direction quickly enough.

EDIT: Instead of downvoting me, please refute my claims. I love being shown
how I'm wrong, and take mere downvoting as an acknowledgement that I'm right
(as I don't think that I'm trolling - I'm just trying to get interesting
conversations going, and to make people think). Focus on the second paragraph,
if you would like, it's easier to refute or argue against.

~~~
ddewey
You're probably being downvoted because you're stating an uncommon opinion
(humans are no more morally relevant than other species) as fact, and your
only support is an argument from similarity to child-like selfishness.

I'd argue that humans are more morally relevant because humans have richer
mental lives (evidenced by language, culture, etc.), so we have a higher
capacity for suffering and caring about our future lives, and suffering/caring
are the two factors I find to be intuitively "morally relevant".

How would you convince me that humans are not more important than anything
else? Do you have an argument?

~~~
sorbus
Yes, that was why I thought I was being downvoted, and as a comparison it
could have been better - no one likes being insulted.

So, an individual human is more mentally unique than an individual, say,
mouse, and that makes us more valuable than mice? Makes sense. Using that
logic, since mice are easy to make more of, and are all essentially the same
(birds might be better here, because their minds are even simpler, at least
pigeons), they're not so valuable. Which also makes sense, and is basically a
restating of the original claim.

No, I don't have an argument to prove that humans aren't inherently more
morally relevant; but, before this, neither did I have an argument for why
humans are more morally relevant, instead perceiving it as being because we're
very self-centered. But now I do have an argument as to why we are, which is
an improvement and allows me to take all of the assertions of us being more
valuable as somewhat valid, instead of an unproven a priori assumption. So
thank you for that.

------
AngryParsley
Reversal test: If mosquitos didn't exist in the wild and some species of
plants were dying off, would you be willing to reintroduce them to save the
plants? Remember, around 250 million people get malaria every year. 1 million
of them (mostly children) die from it.

Based on the evidence available, I think the benefits of eliminating mosquitos
outweigh the costs. If some plants have to die to save lives and reduce
suffering, I'm fine with it.

~~~
ianferrel
If we managed to eliminate mosquitos, malaria would go with it, just as it has
in many developed nations. Afterward, we could reintroduce mosquitos without
nearly the risk of malaria we have now.

I'm not sure how true that is of other diseases for which mosquitos are a
vector.

~~~
chroma
The purpose of the reversal test is to eliminate status quo bias, not actually
pretend the situation is true and offer better solutions.

<http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/statusquo.pdf> explains it better than I
can (around page 9).

------
toddh
What could possibly go wrong? We've done so well engineering complex
ecosystems that there's certainly no possibility of unintended consequences.
For a great example of success take a look at rabbits in Australia
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia>) and perch in Lake
Victoria (<http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php>).

~~~
jerf
Look at Therac-25, the Ariane 5, and the Mars Surveyor! Therefore we should
stop all programming!

Argument-by-disaster is a terrible argument, there is not a single human
endeavor that has not led to disaster at some point. It proves too much.

Reflexively decrying all environmental modification is _at best_ a cognitive
shortcut which should be discarded when it doesn't apply, at worst
institutionalized stupidity-by-choice. Dismissing some crank on the Internet
who offhandedly mumbles something about eliminating mosquitoes with "what
could go wrong?" is appropriate. Dismissing a serious article that seriously
asks the question and considers the consequences is a disservice to everyone
involved in the article.

You're getting upvoted because you are giving people a chance to mentally feel
good about their environmental bona fides because they upvoted you, not
because you're making an even remotely valuable argument or contribution.

~~~
mitjak
Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors
outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of
until it is too late. The old "life would be so much easier without _this_
little nature's imperfection" attitude has brought some unintended and tragic
consequences more than once.

~~~
mtomczak
Thanks to the general availability and utilization of vaccines against
smallpox and polio, massive improvements in sanitation and emergency response,
and long-term cardiac therapy, the death rate due to cancers is radically up.

Cancer is a horrible disesase. Which one of those changes should we not have
made to end up in the situation we're in today?

~~~
mitjak
What causes cancer outside of factors brought about by human intervention?

------
simonsquiff
I've completely changed my mind about mosquitoes. I now think they provide a
really important, fairly unique ecosystem role and it would be a disaster to
get rid of them.

What is it? Well they help recycle the food chain. Those that feed on us are
taking energy from the top of the food chain (us) and they then are at the
bottom of the food chain. The amount of animals that directly feed from
mosquitoes is vast - insects, birds, fish, bats - who then also are part of
the food chain themselves.

It's a great role, for a bottom of the food chain animal to feed off the top
of the food chain one - especially an animal (ourselves) that causes such
ecosystem problems.

If we get rid of mosquitoes what happens to the animals that feed of them?
They need to eat something else, something that isn't getting part of its
nourishment from the vast, untapped population of top of food chain animals.

~~~
ars
Mosquitoes eat flowers (nectar) not humans.

Blood provides some protein for eggs, but is not the primary food for
mosquitoes.

------
nollidge
Headline is misleading. "Nature" doesn't have an opinion, it's asking a
question and reporting the responses of relevant experts.

~~~
javanix
Yes. The "use original title" rule would work just fine in this case.

------
ars
In 2009 the first case of dengue fever in America since 1934 (also called
breakbone fever due to the pain):
<http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/22/dengue.fever/> and there have been 28
cases since.

The reason is that DDT is wearing off and we are getting more mosquitoes.

------
nazgulnarsil
the naturalistic fallacy is getting out of hand. I think it's entirely obvious
how much the blind idiot god of evolution sucks. or did you want to give up
your eyeglasses and allergy medication?

------
martingordon
You would think a site called "Nature" would provide a less human-centric
point of view: "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for
mankind."

"A stronger argument for keeping mosquitoes might be found if they provide
'ecosystem services' — the benefits that humans derive from nature."

Just because we (might) have the means to eradicate them doesn't necessarily
mean we should.

Though the article ends with a quote about how the niche could be filled by
something better or worse, most of the article claims that the other organisms
that would fill the niche would make things better. There is a pretty big
possibility that things could become a lot worse (say, instead of spreading
malaria, the replacements spread ebola).

~~~
wake_up_sticky
Your only valid point is that the replacement organisms might be more
dangerous to humans. I find your callousness toward human suffering repulsive.
If I could press a button that would instantly wipe out any and all animal
species which cause human suffering without any negative consequences, I'd do
it in a heartbeat.

~~~
Avenger42
The animal species that causes the most human suffering is... humans.

(Or were you being facetious? Especially since you shifted the argument from
insects to animals.)

~~~
ugh
I would guess that’s why there is a “without any negative consequences”
condition?

If I could, with the push of a button, kill any and all species which cause
harm to humans without, in the process, causing harm to or even killing humans
I would do it, too. Sure. No second thoughts about that.

------
danielford
I hate nature's flying dirty syringes as much as anyone else, but most of the
proposed solutions are either localized to a certain area, or species-
specific, or both. Why wouldn't we just start with the disease vector species,
then check to see if their eradication had an environmental impact?

------
iamwil
It seems only cute animals deserve to be saved, and disease carrying ones
eliminated. Whereas I hate mosquitoes as much as anyone, but they do have
their ecological place. Pandas on the other hand...are suspect.

~~~
sdfx
I agree that the effort and money spent on conservation is skewed in favor of
cute and furry animals. But there is a real upside to getting rid of
mosquitoes. From the article:

 _Malaria infects some 247 million people worldwide each year, and kills
nearly one million. Mosquitoes cause a huge further medical and financial
burden by spreading yellow fever, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift
Valley fever, Chikungunya virus and West Nile virus._

------
wlievens
Naive suggestion: would it be practical, to experimentally do this on one
island? For instance, eradicate all mosquitoes on Madagascar.

------
telemachos
Has nobody at Nature ever read "A Sound of Thunder"? Seriously?

[http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/s...](http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/hon462/hon462_assets/sound_of_thunder.htm)

------
fuzzythinker
"the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the
niche was filled by other organisms."

Would the replacement(s) be more deadlier? I don't think anyone or any
simulations can answer that.

~~~
mike-cardwell
There are two choices:

1.) 100s of millions of people dying of malaria 2.) 100s of millions of people
not dying of malaria, but with likely unintended consequences, either negative
or positive, or both.

I'd pick number 2. Number 1 is a pretty bad choice. Worth the risk. Inaction
is just as much a choice as action.

~~~
fuzzythinker
or 3) unknown # (0-all) of people dying from the replacement(s)

~~~
mike-cardwell
That's a subset of 2

------
sliverstorm
Shouldn't we focus on getting rid of malaria rather than getting rid of
mosquitoes? Their bites are not particularly worse than many other creatures,
it's just the malaria that's the problem.

I'm not sure what the best way to do it without wiping out mosquitoes is, but
there has to be a way.

------
mitjak
Two words: population control.

There are too many of us now for them to keep up though.

------
xster
The idea is solid and although I'm not completely sold yet, it's definitely
worth more exploring. But my question is, why is this article written by an
intern?>?!?!?!?

------
sachinag
I once called someone I don't like a "human mosquito" because she added no
value whatsoever to the world. Good to know that insult is now backed up with
science.

