Toxic Nectar Kills 90% of Mosquito Populations
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Makes a good case for why eradicating mosquitoes will not be problematic.
But every time there is a large scale intervention like this the side effects only become apparent decades after the fact. You mess with ecosystems at this scale at your peril. Even if we can't see any downside to this today that doesn't mean there isn't a downside.
DDT looked pretty good once upon a time.
Another problem is that we simply have not mapped all the interactions between species within an ecosystem and eradicating one species might upset the balance in a hard to predict way.
Introduction of a new species can be problematic:
http://www.animalcontrol.com.au/rabbit.htm
We have some solid proof for that. Maybe 40 years from now we will know why eradicating something as obviously harmful as a mosquito can be problematic too.
That's the only way to learn, it would be nice if this research was proven correct.
It comes down to determining whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. or trying to kill off mosquitoes.
Wikipedia claims that malaria alone causes 2.23% of yearly human death world wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria
Thats a pretty ridiculous number if you think about it.
This one, maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign ?
gerggerg is claiming there's a big difference between this and previous deliberate attempts to wipe out a whole species. I'm asking, what are those previous attempts? I can think of none for which human welfare wasn't the main selling point.
What I'm ultimately doing is disagreeing with the gerggerg; I'm saying that human welfare doesn't justify any attempt to wipe out an entire species.
You must see the irony in that statement. The whole point is to eradicate Plasmodium vivax, and five other species from the earth.
In addition, there's a bit of a difference between a microbial parasite and mosquitoes, with regard to ecological roles that benefit humans. I'm sure you can see the difference.
You seem to prefer pot-shots to reasoned defences your statements. I'm not surprised; I do occasionally hear statements like "Let's start spraying DDT from planes and dumping oil on wetlands" from people without the means or will to support them, but I am disappointed to hear it on HN.
One could argue that in the light of human overpopulation it might not be wise to remove one of our last natural predators.
A cynical stance, for sure, and it gets only more cynical when you consider that we might be trading mosquito-deaths for starvation-deaths here...
Malthus might make that argument, but others, like Julian Simon, would say quite the opposite.
The Malthusian theory is that we've only got a certain amount of arable land, and thus can only support a finite number of people. Once we hit that maximum population, mankind stagnates at that point.
The competing theory -- and the one that has proven through history to be correct -- is that the most important resource, the one that outweighs all others, is the human mind. The more people we have, the more creativity we can bring to bear on a problem.
Thus, the problem of agriculture has been largely solved. Humans have invented irrigation, terracing, crop rotation, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation. We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.
Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here...
We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.
That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us.
Actually, I've created an alternate universe to serve as a control...
Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here.
That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us.
There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )
Which doesn't change the fact that "proven through history to be correct" is a meaningless claim in this context.
You don't have to be a malthusian to acknowledge that the physical resources of our planet are finite and that our track-record of dealing with similar problems on much smaller scales isn't exactly flawless.
There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )
At least you're adding the winking smiley yourself. ;)
Pretty sure you mean partially correct. The wolrd has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits.
In the long run yes production can potentially keep pace with population but what's more relevant is the population growth rate itself will naturally fall once a certain quality of life is achieved.
Famine isn't caused by a lack of resources - it's a political problem. 87 million people died of famine in the 20th century, but none of those were in democracies. Source (though I haven't checked the numbers myself): http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html
That's an error in causation. What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy (e.g. a strong, educated middle class) also tend to insulate those societies from shocks to the food supply.
Certainly type of government is important but to say famine isn't also caused by lack of resources is silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India
"Deaths from malnutrition on a large scale have continued across India into modern times. In Maharashtra alone, for example, there were around 45,000 childhood deaths due to mild or severe malnutrition in 2009, according to the Times of India.[145] Another Times of India report in 2010 has stated that 50% of childhood deaths in India are attributable to malnutrition.[146] Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India, the largest death rate caused by malnutrition for any country."
Yes. More important than democracy itself is a strong system of property rights and a functional market (these are things that tend to be present in democracies, hence the confusion).
The problem in Africa is frequently that property rights are not respected, so warlords and gangsters are able to confiscate the food and sell it themselves, or dole it out to their minions.
1) Boric acid will kill any insect that ingests it.
2) If you leave rotting fruit out, every nectar lover will drink it. From experience, this will be at least 50% honeybees.
So yeah, it will crash native honeybee populations too. If you are curious and want to see how effective it would be, mix up some bait without the poison. After a few hours, enough for every bug to find it, sit next to it for ten minutes. Count bees vs mosquitoes, you'll probably be disappointed.
A wick is added so that the contents of the container are pulled up by capillary action and suffuse the sock.
1. Ben Franklin wanted the wild turkey to be the national bird/symbol, not the bald eagle.
2. DDT is particularly devastating to bald eagles (due to transmission through fish which concentrate the DDT and makes the shells of bird eggs too thin to properly allow full term hatching (bald eagles really like fish)).
3. Since the bald eagle is the national symbol of the US this was a major rallying cry of the anti-DDT folks
4. If the turkey was instead the national symbol, presumably fewer people would have cared about the DDT effects on eagles, causing a weaker response to DDT dangers (e.g. not putting in a blanket ban on its use).
NOTE: point 4 is pure speculation on outcome, but not unreasonable. Also, the argument I present is just me speculating that is what the GP meant.
Of course I'm mostly joking, but I hate birds and recently got a bunch of bug bites....
Well sure, we'll know why when the aliens feel free to blow up our planet after we kill all the mosquitoes they put here.
http://hellyeahliloandstitch.tumblr.com/post/3095035674/eart...
All actions that we take to try to fix problems go on to create new problems. It's expected.
And, of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't act, unless we have a good explanation now as to why the harm of a proposed course of action outweighs the benefits.
The alternative is to follow some kind of 'Precautionary Principle', which, as David Deutsch has pointed out, can only damage our ability to handle threats which we do not foresee.
Meanwhile, people's lives are in known peril from malaria.
We could try scaling slower. Say, eradicating mosquitos one 100 square mile block at a time, over the course of a century.
If there are regions that need mosquitoes or effects that manifest over decades, we can correct mistakes -- or at least, damage will be limited locally.
It's not that meddling in a complex system is impossible. It's just that you need to proceed at a scale and speed your current understanding justifies.
We don't have to kill 90% of mosquitoes on earth just 90% around major cities.
It looks fantastic today if you have ever had malaria. What is the problem with DDT? It is completely non-toxic to humans and dirt cheap to make. It depresses birds of prey populations during the malaria eradication process, but that is a pretty small price to pay compared to getting malaria. Sure, it is inappropriate as an agricultural insecticide, but it is perfectly fine as a compound to wage war against malaria.
If you could go back to the 1940's, and stop the DDT spraying to save the birds it killed, would you? I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands, and gassed DDT all over human populated areas. I'd tell them to do it again.
From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Effects_on_human_health:
DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP)[46] and "moderately hazardous" by the World Health Organization (WHO)
The evidence on Wiki is mixed. Maybe it makes sense to use it for malaria, but there are also other solutions that might have better cost/benefit.
This is a bit of a non-sequitur. The problem was that whole species of raptors were threatened by the widespread use of DDT. Yes it absolutely would have been wise to restrict DDT earlier than they did. Or maybe we Americans just enjoy the thrill of nearly exterminating a species of bird. The result is the same: DDT is now restricted in the U.S., and Americans cope with it just fine. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the struggles of people in tropical third-world countries, who can often do little better than try to save enough money to buy a mosquito net.
> "I am glad our grandparents generation poured oil on wetlands"
Right, because wetlands don't benefit humans in any way, do they?
What compound do you propose treating those mosquito nets with? I assume it is something more expensive and shorter lasting. Untreated mosquito nets don't work very well, and other chemical treatments only last 3 months, and cost 3x as much. DDT is cheap and lasts a year.
DDT has an important role in mosquito control in poor countries, and a lot of technical effort is being put into helping them to use DDT in a targeted, efficient manner, i.e. in manner different from that for which you congratulate our misinformed grandparents.
But perhaps you'd recommend that the third world destroy their wetlands as well (more than they already are). Care to defend that remark, or was that just a cheap drive-by?
I have no problem with the third world using the same techniques to eradicate malaria that was used in the US to eradicate malaria.
If sprayed promiscuously as the Americans did, how much DDT would even the smallest third world tropical country need to make a dent in malaria rates? How much acreage would have to be oiled (and thus destroyed as a habitat) to do the same? Assuming they could afford it financially, how would they afford the ecological costs? Remember, many of these countries don't have industrialized agriculture to insulate them from damage to native habitats.
And forget oiling wetlands -- that's not how the Americans did it. Americans did most of the work by draining wetlands near populated areas. So tell me how that would work in a country like Nigeria? I'll give you a hint if you need one.
There are many intelligent ways to fight malaria. Exporting some clumsy, ham-fisted methods that Americans rejected forty years ago is not one of them.
Ban it a few decades earlier, and people would not be "coping", they'd be getting sick as hell.
DDT was only one part of the U.S.'s efforts against malaria, and it is the other mitigations that have provided lasting relief; notice that DDT has now been restricted in the U.S. for over forty years, and malaria continues to be a non-issue in this country.
The pyrethroids that we now use, which are both more effective as knock-down agents and less persistent in the the environment, were first developed in the 60s. If we had restricted DDT use in open air earlier, as we should have, smart money says that development of alternatives would have accelerated. The TVA would have continued with the main parts of the malaria program -- water management, urban planning, maybe even in-home spraying (which is where DDT is most effective anyway). The U.S would still be here, and you'd still not be getting sick as hell from malaria.
All of this is silly anyway. Eagles have made a comeback, so who cares what happened in the past? Seems to me everything worked out pretty well.
Unless the local mosquito populations are resistant to it, as a lot of them are. That's why it's barely used now. Seems a bit rude to point that out, given how enthusiastic some people are for the substance.
Really? Does it? Because I've read that article several times, and as far as I can tell, the "case" it makes for erradicating them consists entirely of the opinions of some scientists and the half-baked idea that "obviously something else would fill in the niche".
Heck, every time I read that article, considering the amount of time they devote to the impact of erradication, I am astounded at the conclusions they draw, which they seem to have been actively tearing down for the duration of the article.
You can actually buy rods of the stuff to insert into rotting (or in danger of rotting) wooden beams (such as a beam in the foundation of an old house that gets too wet). When the wood gets wet the beam spreads and stops any further mold rot or insects (roaches, ants) from harming it. It's amazing stuff really.
For other rotting pieces of wood you can create better mixtures with other easily available ingredients and sort of "paint" with the stuff.
Question though, despite absolutely loving the idea of a mosquito free world, is there a consequence to eliminating mosquitoes from the food chain?
But I agree with you -- careful reading of the article itself suggests otherwise.
For example, "Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere?" or "the loss of these or other fish could have major effects up and down the food chain" or "without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators." Any "but that doesn't matter" commentary is couched in weasel words like "unlikely", and the concluding quote is from a mosquito control association.
Finally, article makes this remark, "Ultimately, there seem to be few things that mosquitoes do that other organisms can't do just as well — except perhaps for one. They are lethally efficient at sucking blood from one individual and mainlining it into another, providing an ideal route for the spread of pathogenic microbes."
We don't know the long term effects to evolutionary processes of losing that inter-species blood to blood route, and I for one would like to see a citation saying such a mechanism, existing since the Cambrian era 79 million years ago, is irrelevant at large time scales.
// Disclaimer: Almost everyone in my family contracted malaria while living in Africa.
Quick How-to
1. Cut 600ml bottle.
2. Invert top into opening (see pic).
3. Tape with red and yellow (i read somewhere that fruit flys are attracted to it)
4. Fill with something 'sweet', some honey or even apple cider vinegar.
5. Add a dash of detergent. (maybe some white oil)
6. Hang on fruit tree near fruit.
The flys go in, they land on the mixture, detergent sticks to them and they drown.
I have never seen a bee in there.
It's still possible they'll get resistant one way or another. The article claims 10% survived. This doesn't mean they're resistant to the dye/boric acid, it probably just means they never tried the bait. It's possible they'll become resistant to the bait (i.e. the bait won't attract them anymore).
Maybe it will select for mosquitos that will avoid the fake nectar, but that can be rotated and the mosquitos need to feed on nectar.
They inadvertently tested the boric acid on the local human population when they used fermented juice in the bait pitchers. It proved largely harmless to humans who drink jugs of random, poisoned alcohol they find laying around.
Which is practically the same as being resistant.
Boric acid is much less expensive than Spinosad. It is also about as harmless to humans as table salt is. It is a chief ingredient in Silly Putty. Dr. Schlein said he had heard that some Malians sampled the alcoholic bait brew, with no ill effects.
But it kills insects that eat it. It is common in cockroach control; when a thin layer is spread on floors, cockroaches take it in when they preen their feet.
“You can buy it by the truckload,” Dr. Christensen said. “And it kills in so many ways that there’s never been resistance to it. Some authorities think there never will be.”Well, it's a fun though experiment, at least. :)
In the The Hellstrom Chronicle, a 1971 Academy Award winning quasi-documentary/science fiction/horror film, a fictitious scientist called Dr. Nils Hellstrom presents scientific-sounding theories that insects will ultimately win the fight for survival on planet Earth because of their adaptability and ability to reproduce rapidly. The human race will lose this fight largely because of excessive individualism.
The film provided the inspiration for Frank Herbert's science fiction novel Hellstrom's Hive.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Hellstrom...
They don't kill as much as they cause malaise (from anemia), so people have low energy and grow less food. So mosquitoes cause starvation. Get rid of them and people will grow more food without prompting. You won't have less food to go around - you'll have more!
This thread presents a great opportunity to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Who wants to start?