
Guinea Worm Is Set to Be the Second Disease We’ve Ever Managed to Eradicate - dineshp2
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/guinea-worm-is-set-to-be-the-second-disease-weve-ever-managed-to-eradicate-jimmy-carter
======
jamessb
As written, the title is wrong, though the article does contain the correct
statement that "Guinea worm disease is on the brink of becoming the second
ever _human disease_ to be completely eradicated through human endeavour".

Rinderpest, a viral disease of cattle, has also been eradicated:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases)

~~~
cstross
ISTR that when the last wild California Condors were taken in for captive
breeding (the species was down to single-digit numbers) the conservationists,
naturally intending to give their new charges the best care available, gave
them an insecticide bath ...

... Not realizing that mites and lice are _extremely_ fussy about their host
species and frequently can't live on another organism. As a result of which,
the conservation process inadvertently rendered two species extinct.

(Moral of story: we tend to pay attention to charismatic megafauna and to
horrible zoonoses that kill us, but in doing so our actions can have
unforeseen side-effects. I don't think anyone's going to mourn the passing of
the guinea worm _but_ it has a life cycle that includes stages in non-human
host species, and I don't think we're paying nearly enough attention to the
implications. Oh, and the same goes for malaria, zika, and so on.)

~~~
devishard
I do think that there is good reason to make these decisions intentionally
i.e. don't drive species extinct by accident. But I'm not sure that an
intentional thought process should lead to different conclusions. It depends
on what the goals of conservation are.

Humans have, by our presence, drastically altered a variety of ecosystems in
ways that can't be undone. In the case of the Condor parasites, it's unclear,
but it's possible that if the mites and lice had been left alive that would
have been the difference that drove the condors extinct. A non-intervention
approach might have extincted all three species.

A more extreme example: in the Galapagos, human-introduced flies have been
killing the finches that inspired Darwin. A non-intervention approach is
arguably the most natural, but this would likely cause the finches to go
extinct. Intervening to kill the flies might save the finches, but it also
involves ecosystem changes to kill the flies and interaction with the finches
that demonstrably has already modified their behaviors. Ultimately, returning
the finches to their original state is not an option, so any course
conservation takes will result in an ecosystem that differs from what Darwin
observed.

Given we can't undo the changes we've already made, it makes sense to make
these kinds of choices based on human factors. It makes sense to choose
majestic condors over lice and mites, historically valuable finches survival
over their unmodified behavior, human health over guinea worms, and human
health over malaria and the mosquito populations that carry it. Extinction of
mosquitoes in particular has far-reaching ecological effects which we should
strive to understand and mitigate, but I doubt that any of those effects will
be more compelling to me than the suffering caused by malaria.

A pragmatic view of conservation realizes that change is inevitable, and the
best we can do is push that change in positive directions, and further, that
"positive" is subjective.

------
exar0815
The sad thing is, that we could be a lot further in eradication of many
diseases. We are on a good way with polio and measles, but the uneducated and
plain stupid people that refuse to vaccinate are a grave danger to that
endeavour. Also, the shortsightet and ideologic agenda of many "ecological"
organizations for banning DDT was a huge setback in the fight for the
eradication of malaria, as is now the zealotry against genetic therapy and
stem cell research.

~~~
iofj
Just to give some perspective. These are some examples of what vaccination is
up against :

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/)

The situation is improving slowly, but only in a few ways. It used to be the
case that both the mainstream of islam and extremists were against vaccination
(and even now the mainstream is wary of it : apparently it proves allah
doesn't have power, and of course the disease and it's effects is the fault of
the vaccine, not a major flaw of allah).

But extremists are as much against polio vaccination as ever. Apparently
they're going to defeat the world with "muslim wombs" and polio vaccination is
apparently really a secret plot to make them infertile. (in a way it is of
course : more surviving children will extinguish one of the main reasons for
having many children, and if it happens the same as in the west in the 20th
century, number of children will drop by a lot)

One more thing daesh and muslims are fighting to "save" :
[http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/polio_victim_a...](http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/polio_victim_afghanistan.jpg)

~~~
tokenadult
The first article you link,

"Religious Opposition to Polio Vaccination," Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Jun;
15(6): 978.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/)

is quite helpful. Significantly, it was published two years before Osama Bin
Laden's compound was discovered and he died.

------
dlss
"The rare Guinea Worm faces extinction. Yet despite growing public support for
environmentalism and preservation of endangered species, few people will speak
out on the Guinea Worm's behalf. In fact, the United Nations and several
prominent U.S. agencies are leading a quiet campaign to eradicate this
dwindling species forever from the planet. Is the Guinea Worm the world's most
endangered species?"

[http://www.deadlysins.com/guinea-worm/](http://www.deadlysins.com/guinea-
worm/)

~~~
Zhenya
I actually can't tell if this is serious or should be on The Onion.

------
ghshephard
I often wonder if there is any argument to be made that completely eradicating
the Guinea Worm, Anopheles mosquitoes, Variola major and Variola minor
(SmallPox Virus) is not a 100% good objective.

My perspective (as well, I'm guessing, approximately 100% of humanity's, to
quite a few significant digits), is that any significantly lower being that
hurts humanity, or presents a threat, has no right to exist, and therefore
we'll terminate its entire existence.

But, you can see, taken to its logical conclusion, that thought pattern could
lead to less than desirable ethical behaviors.

Perhaps we draw the ethical line at the vertebrates. And maybe Octopuses.

~~~
rimantas
I draw the line at "my species come first". So if someone cares more about
other species than about humans that's unethical to me.

~~~
ghshephard
I read some interesting articles about Cecil/Lions in South Africa. While, in
the west, there is a lot of support for Lions as "Majestic Creatures" \- there
are a lot of people, particularly those who live in the same habitat as the
Lions, that are not such big fans, and are more than happy to see them wiped
out to the point where they only exist on Wildlife Reserves/zoos. There are
also lots of scenarios where we try and protect, at incredible costs to human
welfare, protected species like the spotted owl, or gopherus agassizii, the
California/Nevada tortoise that's endangered by Solar Panels in the Nevada
Desert.

While all of us (for any reasonable definition of all of us) are happy to see
small pox, guinea worm, malaria, ebola, and now zika, wiped out in the name of
advancing humanity, it's pretty clear there is a greater divide when it comes
to lions, owls, and tortoises.

And, before you say, "Well, the owl/tortoise only have _financial_ impact"
remember that $$$ can be easily translated into lives simply by dialing up
safety standards/inspections/health care/etc... With incredible returns in the
third world, and, even some low hanging fruit in the first world as well.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Along the same lines, advanced human civilizations have pretty much always
wiped out large predators in the vicinity of their dwellings. If you look at
where large predators such as lions and tigers are, they are in under
developed areas where people in the past did not have the ability to eradicate
them. Now that they are able to, the people are often lectured by outsiders
who in no way face risks from these animals that they should not do what is
best for themselves, but sacrifice their livelihoods and perhaps their lives
for some greater environmental good. Many times the modern conservation
movement smacks of leftover colonialism where white people in safe areas
purged from large predators attempt to keep brown people from bettering their
lives by doing the same things that the white people's ancestors did-
eliminate threats to themselves and their livestock from wild large predators.

------
ohashi
That's fantastic. Hopefully he's successful. What disease is next?

~~~
Symmetry
We're getting Malaria under control but it's far from being eliminated.

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7572/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7572/full/nature15535.html)

------
stereo
The educational tshirt
([http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/ins...](http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/10c._educational_materials_df.jpg))
is quite wonderful. Selling them in the West would help raise funds - I would
want one!

------
ommunist
Biologically speaking, you should keep this species. Because its unique
biochemistry possesses the secret of penetration and adoption to human immune
system. If the species is lost, this will be lost too and we shall hardly ever
achieve tech of curing human body with internal self-delivering mech agents,
like the famous "Kremlin Pill", just going through the body, not the
intestines.

