Hacker News Reader

Comment by kbenson | Hacker News Reader

So, I know disrupting ecologies can have profound consequences that aren't obvious ahead of time, but let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume we have a 100% effective way to kill all mosquitoes within 18-24 months.

What are the known disruptions and consequences of this? Do we have ways to combat problems due to that?

What are the probable/theoretical distuptions and consequences? Do we have have to combat these?

Not that I'm suggesting we do this, but with our current understanding, how much trouble do we think it would cause in the case of mosquitoes?

View on HN

Beyond your question of ecological impact of killing all mosquitoes, as others mentioned they don't all need to be killed.

Historically, South Florida engaged in annual mosquitoe controlling campaigns. Essentially aerial spraying during the Summer. These were stopped because of the budget cuts related to the collapse of the Florida housing market.

Not only did the mosquitoes become intolerable, but before Zika we had a breakout of mosquitoe transmitted Dengue fever. Moreover, the historical mosquitoe controlling never killed all mosquitoes but the were effective in preventing breakouts like Dengue Fever and Zika.

When the tourism industry screams loudly enough they will find the cash for the spraying.

When I was growing up along the Indian River in Florida, they used to send trucks through the neighborhood on summer nights that sent out huge clouds of mosquito killing fog. <s>I'm sure that was perfectly safe.</s>

I go up there to Hutchinson Island every Summer, at night on the Beach the sand flys (no-see-umps) are absolutely brutal.

I doubt they'll bring back DDT spraying programs. But there's no question it was effective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Nature has a good article and eliminating misquotes has little ecological impact and obviously large positive impact for humans . http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

OK, so how do we do this? Is there a candidate I have to vote for, or a fund I have to finance? Let's kill all the mosquitoes already.

> Given the fact that species transmits so many dangerous pathogens it’s very unfortunate for humans that they are such great survivors, and have been rapidly expanding their range during the last couple of decades... Aedes albopictus is now considered to be one of the 100 world’s worst invasive species...

http://planetsave.com/2013/07/01/tiger-mosquito-asian-tiger-...

> The Asian tiger mosquito is about 2 to 10 mm length with a striking white and black pattern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_albopictus

Oh, and also the gallinippers are worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs9nxljtI6I

Unintended consequences still manage to arise most of the time when people think they can play god and mess with nature in that way. Until relatively recently, people didn't even know that hummingbirds relied heavily on eating small insects like mosquitos rather than just drinking nectar. Undoubtedly there are many things like that which we simply aren't aware of.

I've never understood this argument. We have been "playing god" since we settled down 10,000 years ago and started practicing agriculture. The ways in which we selectively cultivate/breed plants/animals have do doubt caused major changes in ecosystems. Yet, if we had not done those things, we probably would not be here today.

Furthermore, where do you draw the line? We are very close to eradicating the polio virus. Do we know ALL the consequences of doing so? No. Does that mean we should stop? No. We have, at some point, decided that it causes an immense amount of human suffering and decided to eradicate it. Same with certain species of mosquitoes.

> Furthermore, where do you draw the line? We are very close to eradicating the polio virus. Do we know ALL the consequences of doing so? No. Does that mean we should stop? No. We have, at some point, decided that it causes an immense amount of human suffering and decided to eradicate it. Same with certain species of mosquitoes.

It reminds me of the Trolley Problem with the exception that you can't be completely sure what the lever does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Basically, the easy option is to do nothing, avoid responsibility and potentially have the worst outcome happen that you could have prevented.

or, more colloquially, "the devil you know"

> I've never understood this argument. We have been "playing god" since we settled down 10,000 years ago and started practicing agriculture.

Yes, and as the above poster stated, often with unintended consequences - many of which have been disasterous. Even after thousands of years of agriculture we've still made monumental mistakes, such as the creation of the Dust Bowl. For an example involving pest elimination specifically, you can look at the Chinese effort to eradicate sparrows.

That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try to eradicate the mosquitoes that are harmful to humans. However, when people are unable to appreciate the problems that unintended consequences have had in the past, and the risks they may pose for the future, it doesn't seem like we're making the decision based on an honest and sober look at the facts.

Viruses are not exactly living organisms, so the comparisons you make are not apt.

There's a huge difference between any virus and an organism which plays a role in a super complex ecosystem (and our food chain) we don't entirely understand.

Likewise, there is a difference between playing god in a self-contained environment like a farm, but which is not the case with the wider environment.

Yes, humans have driven many species to extinction but I think in retrospect this would have been inadvisable.

Everything in engineering is a compromise, and ecological engineering is no different. We still do it anyway. We get to do it because we're humans, and the other species aren't.

It is not reasonable to demand assurances of complete safety, or freedom from all possible adverse consequences, before taking action in defense of our own species.

> We get to do it because we're humans, and the other species aren't.

Beavers get to do a little ecological engineering now and again.

True, and I'll bet they don't feel especially guilty about it.

I bet coral is starting to wonder what it did wrong.

Hard to see what relevance that has to mosquito eradication. Evidence suggests we've done a lot of harm to coral ecosystems around the world, but not as a result of the careful study and consideration that we're applying to the idea of wiping out certain harmful mosquito species.

I believe the parent comment meant coral wonders what did it wrong to not count as a species doing ecological engineering :)

So far i haven't seen any real argument against eradicating mosquito, and other species killing humans (ticks, tsetse kissing bugs)

Humans are starting to think about what we are doing wrong. The expansion of the regions afflicted by mosquitoes is largely our fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4t0BKlICsk Motherboard report about how beavers imported to Chile have disrupted riparian forests.

You don't even need to kill all mosquitos, just the ones that bite humans and carry disease. South America actually did manage to nearly eradicate Aedes aegypti, though the success was short lived.

Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.

> Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.

Could it not have crowded out some other niche that will be left empty if they were removed?

> Aedes aegypti is not even native to South America- it's African. So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.

This logic may have been applicable way back when the first few Aedes aegypti made their way to the New World, but at this point, so much has changed in our New World, and we don't really know all the ecological changes that Aedes aegypti may have already caused. Perhaps, they have become an integral part of our society.

Some of them, I assume, are good mosquitoes. But who's doing the biting? Somebody's doing the biting!

We need to build a net. They have to go back!

> Perhaps, they have become an integral part of our society.

Perhaps, but I don't believe anyone has demonstrated that mosquitoes have this crucial in impact to he health of the ecosystem. In fact, the aforementioned Nature article explicitly argues against that idea, though obviously it's only a sample size of 1.

I'm aware of that possibility, but their main niche seems to be sucking human blood and passing diseases around. Other mosquitos feed on other animals and plants, but A. aegypti really loves to eat people.

> So eliminating it from the New World can't do that much damage given that the ecosystem got along fine before it arrived.

I wonder what kind of South American bug pollinates Cherimoya blooms? The Cherimoya fruit is exceptional, but producing it in California requires hand pollination since some bug that lives in the Andes isn't in California.

Hopefully whatever man dumps into the environment won't create some new nasty... flesh-eating locusts perhaps?

They did this in Brasil decades back. Mandatory home inspections where they had patrols go through every single house and eliminate water pools where mosquitos could breed, mostly all made by humans.

I believe the eliminated mosquitos for a certain period of time but this technique didn't work in the states because Americans were adverse to government agencies coming into their homes and telling them what do to.

Here - http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/while-brazil-was-eradic...

Lots of places in the US have mosquito control boards that go around inspecting properties. For example, this page lists residential site inspections as one of the methods being used to combat Zika virus in Florida:

http://www.miamidade.gov/solidwaste/mosquito-control.asp

Searching on "mosquito control board inspections" returns lots of similar results. I suppose people might not always follow recommendations.

You only need to kill the species that bite humans (at least until others start biting humans).

There are extermination technologies being experimented with that have quite a high level of effectiveness:

http://fusion.net/story/333793/oxitec-zika-fighting-mosquito...

I did a bit of research a while back, and it seems like no mosquito fills a vital role in its local ecology. They pollinate flowers, but less effectively than other insects. They're prey for insectivores, but no known insectivore preys primarily on mosquitoes. Their prey doesn't usually die, so there's nothing whose numbers they're keeping down.

Is it possible that mosquitoes spread beneficial pathogens among humans, in addition to the deadly pathogens they are known for? The concept of overprotective parents preventing their children from building their immune system comes to mind.

Since the definitions of pathogen is not just "microorganism", but "microorganism that can cause disease", the idea of "beneficial pathogen" appears to be a contradiction in terms.

That said, hormesis is a conceivable factor.

Yes. What if mosquitoes inoculate us (and/or other animals) against diseases during childhood? Absent mosquitoes, I wonder if we would become more vulnerable to those diseases entering our systems through other vectors.

Yeah, we humans are so good at making animals extinct. I can't believe we haven't done that with human-biting mosquitoes (or other nasties) a long time ago. It is time to do that; nature will find a way without the buggers.

> Yeah, we humans are so good at making animals extinct.

Well, largely by crowding them out of food or space. While species we compete with get the short end of the stick, those that we have parasitical or symbiotic relationships with have quite a different experience.

> What are the probable/theoretical distuptions and consequences?

This is actually a pretty well-researched question! (Wish fulfillment I assume.)

A good summary of research is here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/wha... (includes links to studies)

TL;DR: probably worth it for humanity

Reply on news.ycombinator.com