ITT: people who live in countries that aren’t ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea
Before anybody says "well actually there was a study that said nothing bad would happen", the horribly flawed studies about wiping out mosquitoes being harmless acts under the assumption that animals that feed off mosquitoes will find other insects to live off of. With insect populations dropping to tiny fractions of what they were years ago, it's incredibly short-sighted to think that's feasible. It's the same as saying "all the rice in the world could vanish and humans would just eat something else." Technically, yes, but taking away a large portion of so many people's daily calories isn't a good idea. And looking at how fish, amphibian, bat, and bird populations are lower than ever, getting rid of a readily available food source that links entire ecosystems together is pretty selfish. Work on treating the diseases instead of taking the easy way and just destroying things.
- there are several parasites that fall into that umbrella
- none of them give you permanent immunity or even permanent resistance to reinfection, so we can't crib from those metaphorical notes to find a good vaccine
- the parasites are developing drug resistance/immunity
So while I agree we should be extremely careful about even considering wiping out a species on purpose, it's not for lack of exploring other options that we're at this point.
But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished.
There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have any side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some.
I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.
There's nothing to be lost in doing a trial in an isolated area. The world is vast, we don't need to eradicate mosquitoes at the same time everywhere...
We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something you know.
Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
That aside, millions of human deaths (annually or in total) is a horrific tragedy, but if we, say, managed to render a large area of land uninhabitable through ecological collapse for a generation or more, it might be far worse, both in some imaginary absolute scale, and for the people directly displaced.
One has the sole effect of making humans healthier. The other is linked to far too many things to predict the outcome of. Considering dragonfly nymphs have mosquito larvae as a stable food source, it's safe to say that knocking them out will probably affect them. Then follow that food chain up (and down) and things start to get complicated.
Perhaps this is observational bias from your part? Human brain detects negatives far easier than positives.
The world is a complex place, and any action that has externalities likely creates both negative and positive ones - and for some people even same effects can be negative for some and positive for others.
Yes, bad things can happen for anyone. Generally, though, I would say deeds of compassion breed compassion.
That said, I think it's possible, but I'm very skeptical that eliminating a species will be free of indirect effects.
The ongoing insect apocalypse is a problem, a potentially civilization-ending one. But wiping out malaria wouldn't be, and at this rate we'll probably do it by accident even if we don't implement this.
And perhaps it is worth to consider using a domain of technology - biotechnology - we have yet to understand better? Every tool comes with it's price, and so does CRISPR/Cas9. Gene drives can override and change the hereditary mechanism which makes genes propagate in populations. There are possible second order effects in place, which would be very important to rule out before applying such a method in the wild.
<irony>Unless... unless, of course, we are happy with the import of rabbits et al to Australia.</irony>
(The eradication of this particular mosquito species is likely harmless, but that does not matter. We should do it even if it isn't)
A) the use of a technology - a gene drive - we have no full control of in the wild
B) the act of eradication of a species
to help to lower the loss of human life in Malaria affected regions.
Your statement regarding the Australian ecosystem engineering is purely hypothetic. The import of alien lifeforms always had a detrimental effect on ecosystems, and often, as a second order effect, on humans as well.
It scares me how a lot of people think that it is not worth thinking and evaluating the use of a technology. Perhaps it is because they have no experience and knowledge in this particular domain of science?
That depends on the level of risk to other species, in case these genes leak across some barrier.
Which might be fine, but you need to, uh, check.
Was it worth it? Yes, but all the consequences have not yet come home to roost.
Odd that you lead with the dismissal of one logical fallacy and then in the short space of this comment fall into the trap of using another one yourself.
We ought to think twice before expediting this