Hacker News Reader

Are these the concerns of people who study ecosystems deeply, and dedicate their lives to environmental protection through understanding it deeply?

Or are they the concerns of people who don't know much, though they care deeply? I find these folks often pursue actions with great passion that are effectively neutral or sometimes even detrimental to the environment.

You say that most mistakes of the past have been made after careful consideration, but I do not believe that is the case at all. Most disasters, like the dumping of chemicals from semiconducting manufacturing in Silicon Valley that created so many superfund sites, was just carelessness and complete lack of concern or study.

This is just an appeal to authority with a dash of shaming.

You’re failing to consider the opposite bias, where professionals whose income and prestige depends on a particular idea fail to critically assess it and judge themselves based on their motivations rather than outcomes — and outsiders who only see the claims and outcomes have a less biased view.

That’s the case for gain-of-function research:

- the US banned it despite expert opinions

- a rogue expert circumvented that ban by outsourcing the work to China

- that Chinese lab leaked the studied virus, causing a global pandemic

- the rogue scientist panicked and bribed several peers to help him cover that up and claim a “natural” origin

- millions of people are dead due to hubris and personal biases

I don't think OP is talking about the bacteria-inoculated mosquitoes, they're taking about eradicating the species completely with something like a CRISPR gene drive.

I am passionately in favor of this.

I'm pretty sure when they introduced the mongoose to eat rats in Hawaii, it was knowable that this was an idiotic idea because they don't eat rats. :-P

But yes, introducing new species or new variants of a species is basically a big box labelled "unintended consequences."

> There's more than sufficient reason for skepticism there

there really isn't. it just sounds bad to uneducated laymen - like I said, every expert who studies this, including biologists and environmentalists, agree the mosquitoes can and should be eradicated with zero impact on ecosystems

> It's like how NASA can lose a half a billion dollar probe in modern times because nobody bothered to ensure that all systems were using the same unit systems

this has nothing to do with the subject

> Take yourself a decade in the future and imagine reading about these mosquitoes gaining, at the minimum, a resistance to the bacteria being used. Would it really surprise you? Or would you be thinking something more along the lines of, 'Wow, how could they not see that coming?'

no, the bacteria and/or mosquitoes evolving together is an anticipated outcome and that would surprise absolutely no one. the real question is, when that happens, so what? then we can deploy CRISPR or some other means to extinct the mosquitoes