Results from first US trial of genetically modified mosquitoes

As long as the macro-ecological systems we rely on continue to interface with us in mostly the same way we make the compromise that we are aware enough of the side effects. It's easier to take this perspective with disease carrying mosquitos because of the sheer quantity of human suffering and death they cause.

But this view does have pitfalls, like how we initially missed the collapse of pollinator species that we depend on, or the risks we take with genetically cloned fruit like Cavendish bananas which are a single pathogen away from being wiped out.

https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria....

The problem is that you are grossly mistaken in which is worse. It's the latter. Whether you do it out of purpose, accident, negligence, or apathy, the consequences don't care about your intent.

[1] Which is something we are constantly doing, all around the world, not just in the Amazon.

I wouldn't bet it has any bad effects though.

I hope you mean not relevant to the discussion or topic, because deforestation of the Amazon is very relevant to the planet.

Why would you state that? That is explicitly not the goal of this effort and there is no justification for taking that approach. It sounds like fear mongering.

I can’t ever take those people seriously, vs people who see it as humanity’s role to be good stewards of the earth and operate in balance with it.

Ever read on the idea that most megafauna was hunted down by men?

Yeah... that seems pretty erhm, "unnatural", therefore the entire rest of the world is "unnatural"

Supposedly the tsetse fly was local to a very small area of Africa, yet during the 1700 and 1800 during colonialism it spread onto the rest of the continent, before that the continent was quite settled with larger farm fields in respective areas, but the tzetze fly disrupted all that

Anyhow just wanted to say that "nature" and "natural" once one starts digging more are not really "useful" descriptions, because the world is complex and not an idealized scenario

Humans seem highly vulnerable, especially when in groups, to thought-terminating cliches like this.

I wonder how you fight against it?

Like with the book of bobba fett where there's a crime lord (bobba) whose "coffers are full" and just needs to hire some help and he hires nobody! His "army" was a business partner (fennac), a friend (wookie), another friend (dan), a pet, existing employees (mods), and unpaid citizens (freetown).

> "And the secret to making money in a park," Hammond said, "is to limit your Personnel costs. The food handlers, ticket takers, cleanup crews, repair teams. To make a park that runs with minimal staff. That was why we invested in all the computer technology-we automated wherever we could."

Virtually all of the problems with the park were caused by Hammond's profit-motivated corner cutting. The movie barely has a trace of these themes, but the book is really about the synthesis of unregulated startup capitalism with scientific research (biotech specifically.) The introduction lays it all out explicitly in the first few pages.

I’ll update later with a source reference or two. But I’m willing to bet that Wikipedia‘s “skin flora” page has good info. Im not sure of the term for the mouth’s flora though…but I have zero doubt that it exists, simply because bacteria is everywhere. And gut bacteria get there via the mouth.

Long story short, there’s no such thing as a pure human. We exist only because we are colonized by bacteria. We’re kind of like the earth in that regard. We house living organisms and they make us what we are, without them homeostasis crumbles and so do we. So, with that in mind, we should be selectively helping the good ones and killing the bad, instead of wiping them all out.

Regarding replacing the gut bacteria with suitable enzymes for digestion, that would probably be misguided. The bacteria do more than just help digestion… they also keep bad bacteria out. And furthermore, they actually affect our mental health, keeping depression at bay for instance. Whether that’s indirectly via suppressing inflammation or some more direct means, I don’t recall.

Edit: Looks like it’s a much more direct means of influence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533 (There doesn’t seem to be much about this here on HN already, so I’m providing a source via HN submission in hopes of generating some discussion…)

Never said there was no mechanical cleaning. But they certainly didn’t have our “advanced” toothbrushes, toothpastes and mouthwashes. In fact, I’d say “mechanical washing” was an unavoidable aspect of eating harder foods rather than the soft, sticky processed items we tend towards today. And furthermore, with less stickiness (gluten and sugars) they would have needed less mechanical washing.

Anyways, lifestyle changes don’t need to be all or nothing to have a measurable effect

And yes even good bacteria can/will be bad at some point. Nonetheless they are still better than most others and will help maintain homeostasis for as long as time allows. We haven’t yet found a cure for time-related degeneration/accumulation, have we? But again, maybe I should have said “better bacteria” rather than “good”

Evasive, I understand the meaning, but I fail to understand the implication. Why wouldn't this duck have the right to live, and this other duck does?

It's impossible to contain everything on their continent. Ecological balance is already long gone. Evasive is just an excuse.

Whilst extreme, having large families was a way of life in order to survive because the rate of attrition was high until hygiene & sanitation became more common place, its not just access to contraception or women in education because OnlyFans negates the latter point succinctly!