Isn't that what people always say before interfering with ecosystems?
I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a huge claim like that?
We (humans) are constantly interfering with ecosystems, including wiping out species. However for some reason every single time there is a post about getting rid of this mosquito species there are comments super worried about the ecological impact. I wager the deforestation taking place in Amazon will have a much larger impact than the absence of this species of mosquito
I love nature more than most I know, but if there is evil on this earth, it's the mosquito.
Here's one example. The woodpecker. Around here, its numbers swell when trees have pests under the bark.
But soon, after a few years, they eat most of the grubs, and must find other food. They do. By pecking in the dirt, for bettle grubs, and worms, and so on.
I'm sure their population will diminish, until more tree grubs appear. I'm OK with that.
And frankly, if we kill all mosquitoes and noseeums, some things will starve out, some will adapt.
But I hate mosquitoes so much, they kill so many, I am OK with some birds vanishing.
I literally, like some general sending men to die in a push, am OK with that
Die, mosquitoes. Die to extinction. Die regardless of the price, the cost.
Die, even if they cause lateral gene exchange, and their extinction means we wither, and die too.
Die mosquitoes.
Die.
Smite them, and my sword arm is yours to command.
It is mildly withered with age, but can still poke at many things.
When our AI overlord emerges, you will be known to it.
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.
That might be true but that's also not a reason to deliberately change ecosystems elsewhere.
The issue with mosquitos essentially comes down to risk management. The question is can we intentionally remove a mosquito species from the ecosystem while limiting adverse side affects. Deforestation of the amazon isn't relevant.
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.
We've got concrete examples of getting rid of some species with near-zero consequences, like the guinea worm.
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.
Actually, I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single largest source of death in human history. Perhaps I dont get out much.
Is this true? I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic here, but if that is a defensible claim I want to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Malaria....
Take a look at the coastline of Long Island on satellite maps, and all the scars left by that time they tried to eliminate all of the salt marshes to get rid of mosquitoes near NYC.
Government?
Let's take a step back.
What makes you think human lives are worthier than mosquito lives?
It's actually "that's just, like, your opinion, man".
Wow. Just, wow. I hope you realize that that's a dangerous line of thinking.
But then again it's not very surprising. Historically humans don't have a good track record of preserving the lives of other humans (in other lands). Let alone other creatures.
Also your statement isn't even really true. The reason those mosquitoes are targeted is because nature inadvertently came up with diseases that eliminate humans.
Yet I'm not entirely sure that's a justification for eradicating a sub-species of mosquitoes.
Just something to think about.
In disaster movies, yes, they say that all the time. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Reality and methodical science are a bit more nuanced.
People have studied this for a long time and reached the conclusion that no ecological disaster is likely to occur.
We can never be 100% sure of anything, of course. But we can make informed decisions.