Engineering the Extinction of 40 Species of Mosquitoes
rockstarresearch.com
rockstarresearch.com
The thesis of that article is that nothing of ecological significance would happen without mosquitos, but the examples given don't seem even close to conclusive.
We know many species of fish and birds that eat mosquitos and mosquito larvae. From a few minutes of internet surfing, it doesn't seem like anyone knows whether other insects would take their place or and how quickly that would happen.
IANA biologist, but maybe fish and birds can survive a couple months while something takes the place of the comparatively short-lived mosquito? In any case this whole idea seems totally under-researched.
I have no idea about the answers, but if there is a significant difference there then that might be where trouble could come from.
The problems really start at the reservoir hosts, the mosquitoes are just the transmitters. Controlling the reservoir hosts might be more feasible than eradicating 40 species of mosquito, it sounds like a very ambitious plan to me.
Panama had only 2 problematic species around the (prospective) canal zone.
Eradicating those mosquitoes to allow construction of the canal to proceed without the crews succumbing to Malaria or Yellow Fever was a huge success:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_cons...
Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
It sure does not. After all, tens of thousands of species have gone extinct in our watch. Who knows how many of those were due to having done "this".
>Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
Nope. And I seriously doubt they have shifted "completely".
The last time I saw something about sterile male mosquitoes it was in the context of releasing them in regions with high rates of malaria, to cut down on the spread, not in the context of eradication.
Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere?
Many species of insect, spider, salamander, lizard and frog would also lose a primary food source.
Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators.
Yet the summary:
Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang
maybe
couple months
something
However, even with an incredible amount of research and preparation, eliminating mosquitoes would have an untold number of effects. One effect would most certainly be the exponential growth of the human population. This could be a more difficult pest than mosquitoes.
But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling.
No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale.
I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.
Let me put forth another hypothesis. Lower mortality means investing in your children has a lower risk. This means you can invest more in your children. Further, lower mortality means lower risk that all your children die, so you don't need to get lots of children for "diversification".
This seems kind of backwards to me. Wouldn't working on the distribution problem be more effective than eliminating mosquito species? Obviously this is a much more difficult problem, but improvements in this area have benefits beyond disease elimination and treatment. That such things are difficult to achieve via current philanthropy efforts seems to highlight such philanthropy as flawed and in need of adjustment.
But if the Malaria parasite is gone they may not be infected. If it's not gone the parasite would eventually adapt to the new mosquitos.
Hmm, to me it sounds like:
Screw science (which takes time), let's apply half-learned stuff in real life instead and see what sticks.
E.g let's apply what little we know to extinguish mosquitoes we don't like, despite not fully knowning the ecological consequences of our actions. Hopefully we won't have to deal with the mess (or there won't be a mess).
After all we did something similar before. If you do something once and it turned out OK, then even if you don't understand it, it will always come out OK in any other context, right?
Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”