I guess we have the capability to change a lot (from the technology we posess), but what would be the consequences of such impact on the rest of the ecosystem?
I'd be much more concerned about the changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping (like filling the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases) than about changes that would, almost certainly, reduce harm and have only extremely unlikely and hypothetical risks.
I agree that many of the risks are hypothetical, but I disagree that we can simply dismiss them. Taking a decent amount of time to understand cause and effect on ecosystems seems like a perfectly prudent thing to me.
Kind of, because every time you stomp out one of Mother Nature's ways to keep the human population in check, you contribute to letting the population exceed carrying capacity, which leads to things like:
> changes humans do to our ecosystems that we know cause harm, but aren't stopping
Mostly because the rich world eradicated a lot of them to stop malaria.
Of course, once we were safe we told the rest of the world they had to live (and die) with with malaria, because we had discovered environmentalism.
Growing up my sister got dengue, so I hate mosquitoes, she was fine, I know dengue was no joke, but I always worry we make too many assumptions as humans, only to be proven wrong by nature somehow.
Well, what would come out of the outback once the rabbits are gone? Since we know the state of Australian wildlife before the rabbits, the answer is "nothing".
If there's an abandoned lot and you eradicate the mosquitoes by removing the water filled abandoned car tires, the existing ecosystem does pretty well. In a similar way you can willfully decide to make a livestock pond either a mosquito factory or mosquito free and mosquito free has not resulted in any problems.
Local eradication programs have successfully worked for centuries, at least. What makes this story interesting is its very wide ranging and likely very expensive.
(aside: There are lots of visible downsides to lots of local eradications of lots of things)
> this effort is interesting because it's much less local
So in other words it's very different from all the success cases you're alluding to?
Or do you reserve most of your concern for just the few species of human disease-carrying mosquito?
Kind of a genuine question, because I've observed over the years people popping in to this topic to exclaim deep concern for the potential ecological impacts of intentionally extincting a couple of species -- that most biologists reportedly agree aren't keystone species. Meanwhile, species loss continues to occur globally for a variety of reasons and yet it's still really difficult to get the average person to care very much about that.
The psychology here is peculiar and I don't understand it.
I'm not versed in everything with all these species, but I believe everything has a purpose, look if someone goes all out into mosquitoes and proves they had absolutely no purpose, I'll concede, I just think its worth studying these types of things. For example, some years I fight wasps near my house, then the following year, I'm fighting fire ants. If I don't eradicate one or the other, they show up the next year, every year I fight one or the other, I assume they compete with one another. I wish I could curb stomp both from ever coming back, fire ants make me bust out with sores all over, however, I know me killing them from my lawn / property isn't killing ALL of them.
Many such comments are very dumb, asking 'and how do you feel about viruses, screwworms, etc.?', but since you say this is a genuine question: mosquitoes are numerous and we know that they represent a source of food for many species (bats, birds, other insects). As far as I know, there is genuine debate among scientists about the role that mosquitoes play in their ecosystems. Everyone here has seen species of animals and plants eradicated and then being reintroduced or replaced, when we realise what role they were playing.
Again, assuming you're asking in good faith: you're asking why these commenters are so concerned while humanity is eradicating species all the time anyway: these are not the same populations... I'd wager there is a big overlap between those wondering about consequences and those taking action for the planet (not eating animal products, not flying, etc.). Similarly, I'd wager there's overlap between those posting such illogical retorts, and those eating animals at every meal and driving their car daily.
I see the same ridiculous retorts in HN debates about the condition of animals.
There's an excellent book on the impact of the mosquito on humanity, and a brief overview of some of that subject here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/how-mosquitoes.... These species of mosquito are and have been one of the most significant threats to human health for all of our existence.
I don't think argument-from-ignorance should be more convincing here than it would be on any other subject. There is some debate among researchers, sure, but published biologists have been making arguments in favor of eradication for over 20 years (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/opinion/a-bug-s-death.htm...). If someone is being intellectually honest in objecting to this on the grounds of the fragility of ecosystems, then they must also be an equally loud voice against the use and manufacture of glyphosate. That one chemical alone is already having a far greater impact on insect populations, yet you can buy it at your local hardware stores.
So yeah, I genuinely don't understand the reasoning here. It feels like a dumber version of the trolley problem, where a perceived inaction that has far larger negative consequences is preferable to an action with more limited ones -- except in this case, it's not even right to describe our current impacts on ecosystems as "inaction".
I suspect that if an article were published tomorrow that found that, through some previously-unknown mechanism, the expected rise in global temperatures over the next 10 years would have a side-effect of killing all mosquito populations, that article wouldn't even make the front page of HN. Nobody much would care, aside from those few recurring voices mourning our future.
More cynically, I also suspect that since the worst impacts on human health are occurring in tropical populations, westerners find it much easier to argue in favor of protecting this particular pest.
Would an alien species contemplating the eradication of wheat be correct to think "that won't hurt Homo sapiens much, wheat makes up <1% of our taxonomic category 'things that grow in dirt!'?
I've been following this subject since at least Olivia Judson's article was published back in 2003. Over the last 23 years, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet made a strong case that Anopheles was a necessary part of the ecosystem. If your alien species were unable to identify wheat as an important food source, one would question how they managed to figure out interstellar travel.
The most vocal arguments against are all of the kind we're seeing here: "we don't know what might happen" (a statement of the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature that goes back in fiction to at least Mary Shelley), "we should assume they're necessary" (and yet all other necessary critters seem to be optional), "something needs them, we just don't know what" (in 23 years, biologists have so far identified a single spider that maybe or maybe not depends on them).
And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
I would be easily swayed by evidence of large-scale ecosystem destabilization if Anopheles were eradicated. To date, not only is there no such evidence, but there is some evidence to the contrary (species of mosquito have been introduced to island habitats where they went on to have significant effects on local animal populations).
> If your alien species were unable to identify wheat as an important food source, one would question how they managed to figure out interstellar travel.
Per your prior point: we are causing food chain collapse all over the globe. We are not an alien species with a good track record on this.
> "we don't know what might happen" (a statement of the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature that goes back in fiction to at least Mary Shelley)
Per your prior point: the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature also goes back in reality to the widespread food chain collapse that our science is already unintentionally causing all over the globe.
The following two arguments are not ones that I've made, and aren't necessary to justify extreme caution.
> And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
Obviously the people arguing against you believe there's a chance that altering course would be far, far worse than this already-not-good outcome.
> I would be easily swayed by evidence of large-scale ecosystem destabilization if Anopheles were eradicated. To date, not only is there no such evidence, but there is some evidence to the contrary (species of mosquito have been introduced to island habitats where they went on to have significant effects on local animal populations).
Yes I'm in the same boat as you. But note that this is a fundamentally different position than "other things eat things that humans call 'mosquitos' so it should be fine."
Granted, but also food chain collapse has been happening for a while now and yet Anopheles is still not anything's preferred food source. It really seems to fit the definition of a strictly non-beneficial parasite.
> ...science meddling with nature also goes back in reality to the widespread food chain collapse that our science is already unintentionally causing all over the globe.
There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.
> > And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
> Obviously the people arguing against you believe there's a chance that altering course would be far, far worse than this already-not-good outcome.
I seriously, seriously doubt the people making this argument have thought all that hard about this. The more likely scenario is that the millionish dead per year is happening in other people's countries and therefore it's not thought about at all.
I wonder what the factor-of-10 scale would be for the number of Zika-affected births in the US before Americans suddenly became overwhelmingly in favor of eradicating these mosquito species. 100? 1,000? 10,000? Over-under at 10,000, I guess?
I don't think I got much in the way of any new insight to how other people think about this, but thanks for the discussion, anyway.
... to our knowledge. Obviously the entire disagreement is about how complete our knowledge is and how much we can trust our understanding of how complete it is.
> There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.
No, there's not. I literally work in drug development and use science every day to improve people's lives. Respond to the arguments leveled instead of trying to conjure up a backing "origin of opinion" that you can dismiss more easily.
> I seriously, seriously doubt the people making this argument have thought all that hard about this.
Huh? I would bet the people who are skeptical of this idea are, on average, more informed than the people who love it. Because obviously the pitch of "want to eradicate mosquitos?" is: fuck yes absolutely please, fuck mosquitos they suck. Regardless of one's understanding of their truly horrible health effects elsewhere. The starting position is: get rid of them. The 2nd order consideration is "hmm, what problems might that cause?"
> I don't think I got much in the way of any new insight to how other people think about this, but thanks for the discussion, anyway.
And likewise, I came in requesting evidence for your assumptions and you've confirmed you do not have any.
I replied to the words you wrote. If what you wrote doesn't say what you meant to say, fine, but don't come at me for it.
> The starting position is: get rid of them. The 2nd order consideration is "hmm, what problems might that cause?"
Alright, I can go along with that. Then the 3rd order consideration would have to be, "okay, here are the possible problems it could cause, and here is the evidence for and against."
And that is where I've been working this subject from from the beginning of this thread.
> I came in requesting evidence for your assumptions and you've confirmed you do not have any.
...other than the multiple links to discussions, books, papers, and opinion pieces from subject matter experts, you mean? I notice none of your comments happened to come with any supporting evidence for your argument. We're supposed to just believe that eradicating these pests would cause a worse outcome than the current amount of human misery they cause worldwide because... why? Because of your hypothetical aliens and because humans use science to cause ecological harm?
Maybe take a step back and reassess.
> There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.
Yes, absolutely agreed we're talking about the 3rd order of questioning. In particular the question: can eradicating these mosquitos destroy a food chain that we end up caring about?
Not one of the links you've posted actually addresses this question, except maybe the Archive.ph link which is broken for me (feel free to re-post if you can).
The supporting argument for food chain effects is that when a food source is in an ecosystem for long enough, it will be exploited by something. This is a basic feature of natural systems: free energy doesn't just go sitting around for long.
The question is then if you remove this particular food source over the course of a few years, will alternatives take its place fast enough? You have not posted any evidence of this.
The null hypothesis should be no, since evolution does not typically operate on timescales like this. If 1) all the animals that eat these mosquitos just as easily eat other mosquitos and 2) those other mosquitos can easily breed to make up the difference, then sure! But again: you have not posted any evidence of this claim and it is not at all obvious it should be assumed.
Here are the arguments you and your posted links have made:
1. Mosquitos are bad (agreed)
2. We can kill just the ones that hurt humans (agreed)
3. There are other mosquitos (agreed)
4. Those other ones will take their place in the food chain (not evidenced)
5. Other food chain disruptions are happening anyway (agreed)
6. Therefore this one is probably fine (not evidenced)
You have not addressed the specific point of contention.
> The idea that ecosystems carry plenty of backup, so if a small number of species become extinct there is little harm, has been greatly overestimated, according to the largest global study of its kind.