Hacker News Reader

Comment by meerita | Hacker News Reader

Just make mosquitoes disappear. The rest of the insects can be managed, but mosquitoes are the worst of them.

The diseases they transmit notwithstanding, I would take 10x the mosquitoes if it meant ticks, bot flies, intestinal worms, brain eating amoeba and any other parasitic creepy crawlies were gone for good.

Yeah, some of these parasites really wouldn't be missed at all.

To be fair, ticks, intestinal worms, and amoebae are not insects.

I thought that ticks are insects?

however the diseases they cause are caused by bacteria and other non-insects which they carry around, which I think is the point

Ticks are arachnids and have 8 legs.

Ticks have eight legs and are thus not insects, but more closely related (I think?) to spiders.

There is some research that shows that done of these parasites may have the beneficial action of preventing autoimmune disease by modulating the immune system response. See the layman version [0] or a more scholarly version [1].

[0] https://kids.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/frym.2018.00032

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/

I am no biologist, but my guess is that if mosquitoes were extinct, some spider species would too, birds would also be affected, and so on.

And bats

Yeah, they can go extinct too. That would have saved us a global pandemic or two.

Why not wipe out pigs and birds, too? That will take care of some more pandemics.

Hope you are not too attached to any of the following crops, which would die off without bats: cacao, peaches, bananas, guava, mango, dates, and figs.

> Hope you are not too attached to any of the following crops, which would die off without bats: cacao, peaches, bananas, guava, mango, dates, and figs.

Fruit bats and mosquito-eating bats are different bats.

Responding to someone saying bats can go extinct. They didn’t specifically mention a type of bats, so it seems it’s out of hatred for bats in general.

that is what Romans did, turning the landscape into a desert, wiping out every civilization that opposed them, and calling it peace.

Sure, no life, means no disease, but that is not really sustainable, isn't it?

Wolf spiders will take over. I don't think many people will be happy that they've traded small web slinging spiders for 2" diameter hairy ground spiders.

Wolf spiders do not hunt mosquitoes. The smaller ones may hunt flies, roaches and other terrestrial insects. Weavers will feast on all flying insects, but mosquitoes who are too small.

I know, so getting rid of mosquitoes would get rid of their spider predators, letting would spiders take over.

There are many species of mosquitos, only a few of them bite people, even fewer live in cities and less than a handful transmit disease. We could start by killing the latter group.

Or breed biteless versions of the biting mozzies?

Are there any mosquitos that live entirely on blood?

Only female mosquitos suck blood, and they only suck blood when developing eggs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Egg_development_and_b...

Dragonflies are pretty ferocious predators of mosquitos where they coexist, and I think I remember reading that dragonfly larvae also prey on mosquito nymphs, although don't quote me on that until I find a cite.

A layer further up, many birds include dragonflies in their diet. And a layer further down, fewer dragonflies means more of everything else they prey on, too.

Interesting ethical dilemma. If we do ever encounter extraterrestrial life, I sure hope they are less brutal in their judgement of the species here on earth.

If humans start injecting them with diseases then they would be in the right to get rid of us.

I mean, we almost certainly will? What's the difference when every breath is teeming with a colony of completely foreign diseases?

Because life - at least hear on earth - is pretty much made up by all kinds of bacteria and virus.

So aliens might wipe us out, because their system can't handle it. But parent spoke about the right to fight, when we would attack, like ticks do attack us, like other parsites.

You presume that their biological processes are similar to us, which isn't necessarily true. It almost seems unlikely to be true.

If most of those diseases can't make the jump from a human to a fish or a bird that's from the same planet and even the same evolutionary line, it seems unlikely that we would be susceptible to each other's diseases. This isn't like when Europeans brought Small Pox to the New World; those were still humans.

True, but every once in a blue moon you get a virus that's completely harmless to the host that by pure random luck can make that jump and...gestures broadly

It's only about 10 species of mosquito out of thousands that spread malaria. It would be better to wipe out the plasmodium that spreads it.

This was a recent podcast on the subject, if you like your science more lighthearted:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcpf

Are we really really sure there won't be any unintended consequences to removing mosquitoes?

Have you looked around you lately? What about the unintended consequences of... all of human technology and civilization? Please, get rid of the mosquitos! I don’t want to have to douse myself in chemicals just to go for a hike or enjoy a weekend of camping.

Of course not, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

Plenty of animals make mosquitoes (and their eggs) a big part of their diets (fish, birbs, spiders, and usually involuntarily, humans).

Mosquitos eat mostly flower nectar. Males never bite. Females still eat nectar but need blood to produce eggs.

Mosquito larvae are very good for filtering water.

Cockroaches too please.

Eliminating 4000 over species of cockroaches because 30 are associated with humans and 5 are pests is extreme, I think [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach

> Cockroaches (or roaches) are insects of the order Blattodea, which also includes termites. About 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. About five species are well known as pests.

As scavengers, cockroaches actually fill a useful economic niche. Mosquitos are just pure shared-needle disease spreaders.

Lots of animals (fish, amphibians, birds, spiders, other insects) depend on mosquitoes as a source of food. Also, lots of plants are pollinated by mosquitoes.

I live in a Mediterranean city, and in summers (hell-hole hot and humid) they're my nightmare. The big ones! They swarm the entire city. I get along well with smaller ones lighter in color though. I freak out the moment I notice one on the wall to the bathroom. Poor me.

We cannot do this in isolation because we never know if that would eg affect bird population or if we geneticaly modify mosquitos that can have unintendend consequences that no study can predict.

Do not fool yourself that you can "make a study" for everything: you cannot. You can never predict what will happen if you mess with nature on a genetic level.

This was already proven to be true when they released some GMO mosquitos which were not being able to reproduce.

BUT WAIT!

They were able to reproduce sooner or later again!

How shocking! Who would have thought!

And those scientists then said "this was not supposed to happen".

These scientists got the problem completely wrong, up-side-down: they believed that they "studied" the problem enough. The believed that they "knew enough" that this "should not have happened".

But they won't ever learn that complex system (which is pretty much everything in nature) cannot be "studied and come to a conclusion with a high degree of confidence".

"High degree of confidence" and "complex system" are opposites that cannot appear in the same sentence.

I'd be interested to read a paper discussing what appears to be a previously unsuspected failure mode of sterile insect technique.

Granted, I have to assume that that's what you're talking about under all the absurd hyperbole, because all the absurd hyperbole gets in the way. But if that is what you're trying to get at, do you have a cite?

The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.

Everything has unintentional consequences, because nothing exists in isolation. Arguing that doing nothing is the only moral thing to do, because one can not perfectly predict all that will happen when one does something is absurd. As is your mockery of science, that ostentatiously dissing of a straw-man. We all know the scientific method, please don't claim it is about absolute truth and certainty.

The GMO mosquitos are a good path because the direct consequences affect mosquito genes. If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.

>If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.

This is a good point, and probably has more harmful actions behind it. "Don't do $NEWTHING" is not the same as "do nothing." Think of all the things humans already do to reduce the harm from mosquitos:

- Bug zappers (which aren't even good at attracting mosquitos) - Draining marshlands - Dumping standing water (toads also use this for laying eggs) - Insect repellent (i.e., spreading harmful chemicals in nature) - Introducing predators

Mosquito nets are, AFAICT, the only method without collateral damage.

You didn't get my point.

GMO mosquitos are a completely UNPREDICTABLE path.

The scale of consequences of changes to mosquito DNA is far more predictable then that of chemical water treatment, which, among other things, can and does influence the mosquito genome.

If you want perfect knowledge of everything in all details, then all consequences of every action are unpredictable. Limiting that to only the technology you dislike is unreasonable.

I was really hoping that this was sarcasm, but from replies i see that lots of people take it seriously. Wow, i'm shocked, hope we never will have such ability to eliminate a species on demand when someone got annoyed during camping, without even thinking about the consequences of such action and alternatives how desired outcome could be achieved.

AFAIK, mosquitos are the animals that take the most human lives per annum. It is not only about "getting annoyed" during camping.

EDIT, I found a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_h...

Let's have humans evolve instead of killing things that were here before us.

Natural history is full of examples of "lets kill things that were here before us". So your argument can't be a reference and a call to a natural state of being. What is it about then?

You’re against killing the plague? That’s silly.

I'm trying to remember where I read it, but someone once penned an article, crying about the crime of exterminating smallpox.

They were serious about it, too.

I wouldn't worry. I'm sure that both Russia and the US have some saved up...just in case.

There's a few people out there like that. Like giving sight or hearing back to people who lost it (especially at a young age). Martyrdom-by-proxy?

Ah yes, eugenics. Worked great for the US' native population.

But if you split by country, you'll see that there were 0 people killed by malaria in Europe and 500 in both Americas (2015).

Do you still think that we should kill all mosquitoes in the world?

https://ourworldindata.org/malaria

EDIT: haha, and the second most deadly animal from wiki list on earth is .... human. Should we get rid of these "pests" too? Could help with climate change also.

I did not say we should kill them all. I just contested your camping statement.

There are 0 people killed in Europe because we killed all malaria mosquitos with DDT and by draining swamps. Gene drive is a much more humane method in comparison.

Yes but suggestion of original poster was to kill all mosquitos without even mentioning anything about malaria. My comment was to point out that such blanket approach is terrifying.

Now that we digging in to details we see that when we look deeper in to problem we don't need to kill "all mosquitos" apparently.

Absolutely. ~10 species of mosquito vs the entire continent of Africa and all of the lives within it?

That’s not even an actual choice, it’s just “yes”. I choose humans.

The choice which you are eliding is: eliminate malaria by killing all mosquitos; or, eliminate malaria's harmful effects on humans by implementing existing prevention methods which do not require that.

Mosquitoes rarely themselves kill humans. They are most of the time simply the vector of what kill humans. Actually, checking it, the Wikipedia article do state it clearly : "Mosquitoes do not kill humans directly. Rather, they are a vector that transmits mosquito-borne diseases".

You might consider "don’t shoot the messenger" should apply here too.

> Mosquitoes rarely themselves kill humans. They are most of the time simply the vector of what kill humans.

This is mental gymnastics. Mosquitoes kill humans.

It's not the assassin that kills, it's the knife /s

Would you say that mosquitoes are aiming at killing humans using viruses then?

Hmmmm, let me try something...

Guns rarely themselves kill humans. They are most of the time simply the vector of what kill humans. Actually, checking it, the Wikipedia article do state it clearly : "Guns do not kill humans directly. Rather, they are a vector that transmits bullets".

Guns are the tools used to kill humans, yes. You will notice that guns don’t appear on the linked page, while humans do.

The coronavirus doesn't kill people, it's their own organs shutting down that kills them.

Honestly did you spend more than half a second thinking before you typed this reply? You don't need to be a "well ackchyually" pedant on the internet all the time.

> The coronavirus doesn't kill people, it's their own organs shutting down that kills them.

Viruses are not simple vector of a heal factor.

Put that back in topic please. That it is, should all mosquitoes be destroyed, based on the vague assumption that mosquitoes kill humans, without caring about the ecological impact of removing species which where there since longer than mankind?

Now, how does it compare with the will to eradicate a specific virus which wasn’t a mankind concern a few months ago?

>You don't need to be a "well ackchyually" pedant on the internet all the time.

Isn’t that the kind of sentence that is doing what it critics?

We almost have a method that can work on almost any insect, https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245 and we should definitely apply it to most mosquitos, and many agricultural pests especially in cases when it is an invasive species transported by us from continent to continent. Tzetze, kissing bugs, ticks also need to be eliminated though sadly we do not have a working method for ticks yet.

Was it wrong to (near) eliminate smallpox too?

"evolutionary" humanism would say so.

Mind you, the Nazis were followers of this branch of humanism so take from that what you will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com