Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bossonhigs t1_ivfmk54 wrote

However much I support Science efforts, I can't help not to be concerned about methods that involves elimination of insects even those are just annoying mosquitoes.

First thing that comes to my mind is that bats are feeding off mosquitoes, and other insects. Reducing number of mosquitoes could reduce population of bats, which in long term would cause explosion of insect population.

Messing with nature doesn't end well.

69

Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_ivfszj8 wrote

Since the 1950s, the United States has made efforts to eliminate Cochliomyia hominivorax, the fly responsible for new world screw worm, throughout North America. How? By releasing millions of sterile male flies in Central America throughout the year. As recently as 2016, the species somehow made its way to the Florida Keys, jeopardizing populations of endangered Key deer. Sterile male flies were released en masses along the Florida Keys to eradicate the fly again, at a cost of millions of dollars.

There are more mosquito species out there than most people are aware of. Targeting one that plays an important part in transmitting diseases that cost human populations billions of dollars each year may not have the sort of downstream effects you're predicting.

110

Urag-gro_Shub t1_ivg9psd wrote

I agree - while I generally don't promote messing with nature, there are so so many other species of mosquito that would fill in, should we eradicate 3 or 4 of them. At least where I live, many of them are invasive anyway.

31

Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_ivgl35e wrote

Aedes aegypti, an important vector for Dengue and the subject of the study, was brought to the New World during the slave trade 500yrs ago. Seems like the New World had been doing fine in its absence before then.

29

nevadagrl435 t1_ivji9ga wrote

In the case of Southern California they’ve been here ten years. It barely gets to freezing at night so they never die off. They’re so new people don’t know what to do about them. If dengue ever makes it to Southern California the people here are fucked.

1

Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_ivka083 wrote

It's odd that it hasn't, there's enough movement of people from endemic areas into Southern California.

1

nevadagrl435 t1_ivkaw3m wrote

Per the news they came in on a shipment of lucky bamboo around 2011.

1

nevadagrl435 t1_ivggvcv wrote

Yeah so many defend mosquitoes but they are often invasive. Not native. Like the feral cat population of Australia.

22

NoDownsideToOutside t1_ivguyuq wrote

There’s only one type of mosquito known to transmit deadly diseases out of the 200+ different mosquitoes.

Ridding the world of this one would prevent millions of deaths and mental disabilities that come about through this mosquito. No scientific paper has come to the conclusion that getting rid of it would have any noticeable effect on the environment since other species would take its place.

9

HaikuBotStalksMe t1_ivhorb4 wrote

Nature isn't smart. It's random. Humans are smarter than general nature.

1

GreenStrong t1_ivgngqj wrote

>Messing with nature doesn't end well.

From that perspective, you should favor this effort. Ades egypti mosquitoes are an invasive species from Africa, there were zero of them in Brazil, or anywhere in the Americas, before 1492.

To generalize a bit more, the ecosystem absolutely needs mosquitoes, but it probably doesn't need the ones that are major human disease vectors. There are dozens of mosquito species in any given location, and this treatment is species- specific.

67

okgusto t1_ivhnirl wrote

Genuinely curious. Why does the ecosystem need mosquitoes. Even the non disease carrying ones.

5

zapporian t1_ivhrbs9 wrote

Bats and birds eat them. And the males are pollinators (and ofc don't suck animal blood; only the females do, for egg-laying)

And there's probably more cascading elements that I'm not aware of, but at a minimum they (and their larvae) are a fairly abundant food source for all kinds of small animals (incl amphibians, fish, etc)

There isn't really any animal in the natural world that doesn't have some kind of a supportive role somewhere, outside of pure internal parasites and the like.

10

jimmymerc89 t1_ivjxfot wrote

What about panda?

1

Soepoelse123 t1_ivk3jum wrote

Chinese have removed their forrests, so now they don’t really serve a purpose. They did beforehand and was top notch evolved to their specific function.

1

DanTrachrt t1_ivhrh24 wrote

As the top level comment mentioned, they’re a food source for bats, and also spiders and many other animals and even carnivorous plants in the right areas.

Eliminating mosquitoes can quickly mess up the entire food chain.

2

J3diMind t1_ivhuubd wrote

male mosquitoes do a lot of pollination work iirc. and they are food for larger animals. something something, circle of live..

1

rstraker t1_ivic3w3 wrote

Getting rid of em makes it easier to cut up the topical rainforests of the world. Make progress. Get the non-immune European colonialists in there. The greater good.

−1

manitobot t1_ivfw6ey wrote

But with the scourge of how many mosquito-borne illnesses affect humanity, the benefits might outweigh the costs for us.

18

strvgglecity t1_ivg2zje wrote

Until the food chain collapses. The world is NOT "for humans".

−19

pearlsandplumes t1_ivglrnw wrote

The food chain is not going to collapse because one invasive species of mosquito (i.e. species that doesn't even belong there in the first place) is going to be eradicated from a couple of cities (not even the whole country). Not a single species is dependent on eating mosquitoes alone.

13

strvgglecity t1_ivgqnon wrote

I suppose you have never heard of unintended consequences or seen the entire history of human attempts to "manage" the environment. It's moot anyway, since the anthropocene mass extinction began years ago and we are estimated to be losing 40+ species every day.

−7

-Ch4s3- t1_ivgyoa1 wrote

Most of these disease carrying mosquitoes are not native to the places they are now found. They arrived on ships during the age of sail. They're invasive species. Moreover in places where they are from they occupy a crowded niche of non-disease(for humans at least) carrying mosquitoes. It's a pretty well studied topic and no one is engaged in this without having considered environmental impact.

1

ENrgStar t1_ivh1qk6 wrote

We are responsible for many extinctions of Native and important species every year, eradicating one non-native bug species isn’t going to harm anything. I’d be for it if it only meant less bites.

1

bossonhigs t1_ivg9nwj wrote

I know this will sound harsh, but mosquitoes born illness is the very mechanism nature uses to restore balance when one particular species multiply in such great numbers and become a treat to natural balance itself.

−23

MyDogEli t1_ivgbnsb wrote

That’s a theory/opinion. The statement assumes an intent by nature as if it was somehow cognizant of its actions.

13

bossonhigs t1_ivgpww9 wrote

It doesn't have to be. Evolution is underlying law it abides. One with cognition might observe and draw conclusions. Have you ever watched Planet Earth, that episode with ants in the forest?

Cordiceps fungy infects ant wandered too far, when it returns to colony it becomes zombie but again it goes away and climbs on a branh and spread spores.

Practically, it keeps ant colonies from spreading too much, keeping a buffer zone between ant colonies.

There is some grand design there.

It's not like fungus kills whole colony. It keeps them in check.

−6

GentleFriendKisses t1_ivhbvan wrote

You're just describing the ecology of parasitism/pathogens. If the fungus killed the whole colony, it would have no hosts and go extinct. A fungus that did that would therefore be selected against, as it would not be able to pass on its genes following the extermination of its hosts. The evolutionary role of the fungus isn't to keep ant colonies in check, it's to pass on its genes. As killing entire colonies quickly would be detrimental to passing on its genes, it's not something that would occur sustainably.

2

pearlsandplumes t1_ivgm0dp wrote

How fortunate that it mainly affects brown and black people, then. What a disgusting and deplorable way to view humanity, please educate yourself.

5

manitobot t1_ivhg2is wrote

That’s a very Malthusian sentiment, it’s not just for us in areas without malaria to tell those with malaria that they can’t cure their infectious diseases. The planet is filled with our human brothers and sisters and we need to make sure they have as good lives as we do.

2

bossonhigs t1_ivhhped wrote

That's very philanthropic. I can't say I don't have mixed feeling about humanity so I admit that sometimes everyone is brother and sister to me, but other times, they are just ....

But... isn't for example malaria curable by prescription drugs? What's wrong with sending medications? No profit?

1

manitobot t1_ivhj6lo wrote

I don't really see it as philanthropic but just part of society building. We establish medical care and labor laws and etc to prevent easily preventable deaths, and so the same sort works when it comes to treating tropical diseases. In this instance, its those outside a certain nation (most of the developed world has already eradicated malaria) which I feel is probably a net positive for all of us. It most likely is going to enhance things like productivity and output in nations that still deal with these diseases, and I could imagine plenty of scenarios where it makes sense to help fight diseases, looking at things beyond an ethical sense.

Malaria at the moment can be treated with prescription drugs, but the emphasis right now is on eradication is on ending transmission. I think it would be more costly to send medicines than things like bed nets and DDT, and I don't think it would be as effective. The goal is to wipe out the habitats that house malaria.

2

bossonhigs t1_ivhmsz9 wrote

As I write this, I've been repeatedly bit by lonely mosquito.

1

dustydeath t1_ivgk2cs wrote

That is one of the advantages of this method, actually. It is species specific, as opposed to insecticides that kill lots of untargeted insects too.

14

nick9000 t1_ivgmcez wrote

Aedes aegypti is not native to the Americas (the clue is in the name). Even if this species was totally eliminated there (which it won't be) it would only be undoing a messing with nature previously done by humans.

5

pearlsandplumes t1_ivglfgn wrote

No one is eliminating anything, this is only done in city areas to protect the human population, Brazil is friggin' huge. Also, if you stop deploying these boxes even just for one season, they come back immediately. Plus, not a single species -- except for the viruses, bacteria, and the parasites that cause horrible diseases -- is dependent on mosquitoes alone.

>Messing with nature doesn't end well.

Thanks, I'll be sure to tell that to my doctor at my next chemo appointment. 🙄

3

bossonhigs t1_ivgmaji wrote

We are either part of a nature, or we destroy it for our selfish needs

How's it going? What you have?

1

gethereddout t1_ivg92ci wrote

I live in an area that has never had mosquitoes, but now suddenly does due to an invasive species moving in. So I think it’s worth asking whether certain animals are critical to an ecosystem, or merely a parasite

2

inclamateredditor t1_ivgiftq wrote

While reading about a similar technique for malaria carrying mosquitoes, there were concerns for gene transfer into or from the gmo mosquitoes.

There are many species of mosquitoe and fly that can fill the niche that species like bats and swallows depend on for food.

2

greenappletree t1_ivh3wcb wrote

This is targeting a very specific species though - other mosquitoes would take its place. 🤷‍♂️

2

bossonhigs t1_ivh4sg0 wrote

I'd like to be that way. Egypt mosquito was introduced to new world with slave trade. It's spreading in other warmers areas in the world so getting rid of it where it doesn't belong seems like a good idea.

1

Jibatsuko t1_ivgfzye wrote

Aedes aegypti is an invasive species who came from to the Americas, so no big problem trying to eliminate it cause it’s a plague

1

RedditAcctSchfifty5 t1_ivhduq4 wrote

It's one of the most solid facts of science that the extinction of Mosquitoes, specifically, would have zero effect on the food chain, population of other species, or any other natural process.

This has been settled fact for something like 30 years.

1

bossonhigs t1_ivhenwn wrote

I don't like settled science and it's promoters. Settled science was DDT, PCB safety, teflon, uranium as health wonder, mercury as a cure etc...

I like science evolving and scientists questioning and proposing thesis.

1

Double-Drop t1_ivhjwip wrote

Someone should spend some time meditating on unintended consequences before releasing this.

1

HaikuBotStalksMe t1_ivholpi wrote

Fuck insects. I know Reddit worships them, but I'm cool with them being dead.

−1

could_use_a_snack t1_ivfp3z8 wrote

Agreed. I've brought up similar concerns in the past, and once was told that bats don't eat mosquitoes. Just prepare for a lot of trolling. People really hate mosquitoes.

−9

strvgglecity t1_ivg343o wrote

Bats and birds both eat mosquitos. These people would rather all animals go extinct than have a chance at getting a mosquito disease.

−14

tlind1990 t1_ivgbm2g wrote

But the odds of killing off one mosquito species collapsing food chains seems unlikely. There are over 3000 species of mosquito globally and many likely fill similar niches and likely in at least semi overlapping ranges.

6

RedditAcctSchfifty5 t1_ivhecmo wrote

It's been studied for decades, and the summary extinction of all species of mosquitoes would net zero negative effect of any kind in any ecosystem.

In fact, numerous studies have shown many ecosystems would improve in balance and stability if mosquitoes were eliminated.

1

GimmickNG t1_ivge0yn wrote

that's like saying humans would go extinct if people stopped eating beef.

like...you DO realize that they eat OTHER things as well right?

5

RedditAcctSchfifty5 t1_ivhel3d wrote

As Obligate Omnivores, Humans are a bad example (if you meant all red meat, of course - I see you specified beef, which leaves plenty of other options).

1

GimmickNG t1_ivi3wch wrote

Yes, I wasn't referring to all red meat. That being said, there's not much I could find out about "obligate omnivores", so I'm not sure what you mean by that.

1

strvgglecity t1_ivgqweu wrote

If you artificially remove a major component of a local ecosystem food chain, that is what happens. In your scenario, a human can replace the beef with other foods. That's not how nature works. If you walk in and kill half the deer, for instance, then the predator animals have less food. It's not complicated.

−3

GimmickNG t1_ivgt6wu wrote

> If you walk in and kill half the deer, for instance, then the predator animals have less food.

deer are far larger, just how many calories do you think this species of mosquito has?

2

RedditAcctSchfifty5 t1_ivhf0pc wrote

Right, it's just that no local ecosystem exists, according to decades of scientific research, in which mosquitoes are a significant beneficial component.

1

RealJeil420 t1_ivfrten wrote

Mosquitos are like the base of a food chain pyramid. All kinds of insects feed on them and those in turn get eaten by birds, fish etc. It sounds like a devastating idea to me. Perhaps it could only be used in high populated areas but perhaps not and I cant see how it wouldnt have a detrimental effect, wherever.

−11

f10101 t1_ivfvlft wrote

Narrowly targeting very specific species of mosquito shouldn't cause major issues. Certainly compared to existing approaches to deal with them during severe disease outbreaks, which is basically to carpet bomb entire cities with insecticide.

18

pearlsandplumes t1_ivgmn45 wrote

>Mosquitos are like the base of a food chain pyramid.

No, they patently are not, they are not the main food source for any one species. Also, many of these mosquito species are invasive and don't belong in these countries in the first place, they were imported centuries ago.

>Perhaps it could only be used in high populated areas

I mean, obviously? These boxes are expensive, no one is going to be wasting money on eradicating mosquitoes in the middle of a rainforest. Plus, if you stop deploying them even for one season, the mosquitoes will return immediately. This is temporary containment more than eradication.

4

iaintevenmad884 t1_ivg1gke wrote

We should try releasing genetically modified mosquitos that don’t carry these diseases instead of removing them all together, exterminating mosquitos would be disastrous to ecosystems

−6