FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday January 29, 2015 @05:30PM from the I've-seen-this-movie dept.

MikeChino writes In an attempt to curb outbreaks of two devastating tropical diseases in the Florida Keys, the FDA is proposing the release of millions of genetically modified mosquitoes into the area. Scientists have bred male mosquitoes with virus gene fragments, so when they mate with the females that bite and spread illness, their offspring will die. This can reduce the mosquito population dramatically, halting the spread of diseases like dengue fever.

265 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?
1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  They're part of the fragile balance of our precious, vulnerable ecosystem. Loss of this species will bring down the wrath of Gaea upon the blasphemers.
2. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Birds and spiders of the region have less food.
  I think there are other insects who rely on this food source as well.
3. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  How so? Food source... pollinator... is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
4. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  This article gives a list of animals that feed on mosquitoes, but not a 100% necessity since they will seek other food sources as well
  http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...
  This article from National Geographic mentions a spider that 'mostly' feeds on them
  http://voices.nationalgeograph...
  What are the parameters? Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
  Also, if the genetic variant prevents breeding, what is to prevent it from being transferred to another species via a virus?
5. Re:So.... by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 18:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There are over 80 different species of mosquitos in Florida. This method only targets one of those species. There will still be plenty of mosquitos.
6. Re:So.... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 18:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
  Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed. The technique works by releasing a large number of sterile males which overwhelm the breeding population for one cycle, resulting in a massively smaller next generation. Those males die and by definition they have no offspring. Plus it's already been used internationally without such issues - TFA even mentions this:
  
  In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
7. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?
  Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
  Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
  The dead rising from the grave!
  Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!
8. Re:So.... by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 18:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This technique does not sterilize the male. Offspring are still created but they die quickly. This is a different process.
  
  The modified males then mate with wild females whose offspring die, reducing the population.
  If the males can mate and produce offspring they are not sterile.
9. Re:So.... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-01-29 18:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  How so? Food source... pollinator... is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
  There are many different species of mosquitoes. Only some of them are disease vectors. The Anopheles mosquito, which carries malaria, used to be common in Southern Europe and parts of America. When they were exterminated, they were displaced by less harmful species, with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
10. Re:So.... by Sarten-X · 2015-01-29 18:38 · Score: 2
  
  They don't produce any offspring that live long enough to breed, making them effectively sterile for generational purposes.
  Eventually the first-generation males will die, as well, leaving just the greatly-reduced next-generation population.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
11. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  That would be a point if they were all vectors.
12. Re:So.... by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  While the outcome may be the same the way to get there is completely different than the quoted article.
13. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
  Arguably, that is a detrimental effect. It allows human population to grow unchecked, and human society has historically adapted slowly to needing to provide its own such checks.
14. Re:So.... by Solandri · 2015-01-29 19:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They're part of the fragile balance of our precious, vulnerable ecosystem
  That's a myth dreamt up by people wanting to protect the environment, but who had never taken any higher-level math or engineering courses and had no clue how dynamic systems function. Fragile balances are almost impossible to find in nature, for the simple reason that if something is fragile enough that any perturbation would upset it enough to destroy it, it would've self-destructed long ago before man ever showed up.
  
  Nearly all surviving balances in nature are stable equilibria. They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point. e.g. If you tilt the bowl in the wiki picture, the ball doesn't fall off the top of the bowl like in the first picture or roll away like in the third picture.. It just settles in at a different spot on the bottom of the bowl in the second picture, now-tilted slightly.
15. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-29 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  New checks on population growth came up. We no longer need mosquitos to keep us in our place, when developed world affluence works vastly better.
16. Re:So.... by freeze128 · 2015-01-29 19:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  There is a risk that the genetically modified mosquitoes will be eaten by deformed frogs, which will mate with other frogs and produce frogs that sing and ride bicycles.
17. Re:So.... by NoKaOi · 2015-01-29 20:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
18. Re:So.... by Uberbah · 2015-01-29 21:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's a myth dreamt up by people wanting to protect the environment, but who had never taken any higher-level math or engineering courses and had no clue how dynamic systems function.
  
  Was that at Arrogant Douchebag U? Must not have had remedial biology as an elective.
  
  They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point.
  Like how New Zealand has "re-stabilized" with a quarter of its birds extinct after the introduction of rats.
19. Re:So.... by Jade_Wayfarer · 2015-01-29 22:04 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  ...and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population.
  So... they killed about 9,5% of targeted mosquitoes? Hardly an impressive result.
  
  --
  Absence of proof != proof of absence.
20. Re:So.... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not my choice of words...but their meaning is clear.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
21. Re:So.... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 22:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
  The difference is that at a certain level of their 'church' hierarchy, the Scientologists know exactly what is going on - and who they're taking from.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
22. Re:So.... by m.shenhav · 2015-01-29 23:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Nearly all surviving balances in nature are stable equilibria. They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point. e.g. If you tilt the bowl in the wiki picture, the ball doesn't fall off the top of the bowl like in the first picture or roll away like in the third picture.. It just settles in at a different spot on the bottom of the bowl in the second picture, now-tilted slightly.
  Bullshit.
  That's a myth dreamt up by people more concerned with mathematics and engineering to pay attention to how organic systems actually function.
  Let us put aside for the moment that this reasoning applies to highly simplified models of ecosystems, and not ecosystems themselves. This adds a whole epistemic layer to the problem: we don't really know shit about what would actually happen given a perturbation; we barely know this for many models and for actual ecosystems you can forget about it.
  But then - even model ecosystems are seldom if ever in equilibrium, and the classical stability-based equilibrium analysis may have been cutting edge in 1974 when Robert May published his seminal book, but plenty of problems with this approach have been found since then. There are a plethora of other concepts that have been developed in order to tackle its short comings, for example resilience (how quickly the system returns to equilibrium). All these concepts should always be taken with a pinch of salt; its not obvious they are relevant or even desirable goals in ecosystem management.
  To speak of one particularly relevant metric to this particular issue, there are huge parameter ranges in many models in which oscillatory behavior is present. In his 2012 book, Kevin McCann argues we should focus more on whether the eigenvalues are complex (i.e. prone to decaying or sustained oscillations) than on whether their real parts are negative (the classical stability criterion). If dynamics are oscillatory and I perturb a population down, it will overshoot its original value (possibly perturbing other populations) and will also return back down (making the population spend more time in low numbers and increasing extinction risk).
  Another critical concept is that of fragility proper; as opposed to the dynamical concepts, fragility is a measure of functional response to the perturbation as opposed to the dynamics of the perturbation. Just because there is a stable equilibrium for some variable doesn't mean perturbing will have no cost in terms of other critical variables. For this see Nassim Taleb's 2012 book Antifragile.
  Importantly I would point out the complete disconnect between your statements and empirical observations of ecosystems. We have many studies suggesting that empirically measured ecosystems may be extremely fragile to particular types of perturbations; for example see Solé & Montoya 2001 which identify keystone species by food web degree (number of tropic neighbors) and demonstrate fragility of total biodiversity to extinction of such keystone species. Another example is Montoya et al 2009 where a different identification of the weak spot based on inverse Jacobian / indirect interaction analysis is found. There is also work by Jane Memmott and her colleagues in identifying fragility not only particular species extinctions but also particular habitat loss. One doesn't need sophisticated analysis, however, to see ecosystems collapsing at a rapid rate not only at present but in many historical situations; indeed ecological fragility is quite possible one of the drivers of mass extinctions (present and past).
  Finally, I would add that I would be the first to point out the short comings of all of these methods. The burden of proof, however, is on those engaging on sys
23. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2015-01-29 23:15 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Yes, because a model of a ball in a bowl fully reflects the complexities of the entire fucking planet's eco system..
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
24. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2015-01-29 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed.
  Best said in a mad scientist voice with a "mwah hah hah" at the end.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
25. Re:So.... by tehcyder · 2015-01-29 23:30 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for this message, sponsored by Monsanto, the friendly face of capitalism.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
26. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct, but what you are forgetting is that the new equilibrium point is not predictable and may well be less favourable to humans. Someone with more experience in engineering might understand this.
27. Re:So.... by Livius · 2015-01-29 23:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We're talking about mosquitoes. I'll accept the risk.
28. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:06 · Score: 0
  
  I thought only female mosquitos bit people?
29. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  "anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.".
  Your hysteric commentary has nothing to do with reality, most "anti GMO" people are pretty reasonable people.
  I have a Ph. D on "Computational Genomics" so I think I know one thing or two about genetics, but I also oppose GMO in lots of areas, I am member of anti GMO organizations, so that makes me an anti GMO myself.
  You portray "anti GMOs" as lunatics, because we demand some outrageous things like:
  1-Food that is GMO labeled as GMO so people could decide for themselves if they want to buy it or not. In the US they are not, because they don't want people to choose for themselves.
  2- Stop polluting the seeds of farmers that don't want to use GMO, putting their GMO fields near them, and when the wind pollutes their non GMO plants demanding them, giving them the option of lifting the demand if they change their fields to GMO.
30. Re: So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hello my honey, hello my baby...hello my ragtime gal...
31. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  The bowl analogy is terrible, because it assumes that you need a very large jitter to change the equilibrium. As anybody who has done any real-world optimization knows, in a surface with multiple possible equilibria, one of those equilibria is likely a minimum only because of a gentle slope along one of the dimensions. If you tilt the system even a tiny bit, you have the risk moving the system to a new equilibrium which may be large distance away: and who knows if the coords of that new system have a larger or smaller ultimate loading on mankind?
32. Re:So.... by oodaloop · 2015-01-30 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point.
  Right. But that may takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years and a mass extinction. That new equilibrium point may not be something we want, and it may be completely devoid of humans. A desert is in equilibrium. So is Antarctica. So yes, the environment and the Earth will trudge along and find a stable point, but that doesn't give us free reign to introduce invasive species.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
33. Re:So.... by gatkinso · 2015-01-30 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  Everything that eats them will starve.
  
  --
  I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
34. Re:So.... by Calydor · 2015-01-30 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  Effectively sterile, until it turns out that some wild females have a different rare genetic mutation which when coupled with this one creates something entirely unexpected.
  Being able to reproduce is being able to reproduce. You don't say that a couple who have a stillborn baby are sterile, do you?
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
35. Re:So.... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2015-01-30 01:06 · Score: 2
  
  From what I can tell, we are talking about only one generation of one species of mosquito, and within that species only the offspring of the ones that breed with the released population. So, bounce back would be quite rapid without repeated releases.
36. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the mosquitoes being targeted (Aedes aegypti) are themselves an invasive non-native species. Getting rid of them would be a step in restoring the "fragile balance."
37. Re:So.... by Dr_Barnowl · 2015-01-30 01:19 · Score: 2
  
  They'll eat the other 79 species of mosquito in Florida that are NOT human disease vectors that will happily occupy the ecological niche departed by Anopholes
38. Re: So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but you still are a lunatic. Doesn't matter what your career is, you're still seriously misinformed and irrational.
39. Re: So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Those mosquitoes must be made by a a genius or certified wacko!
40. Re:So.... by jandersen · 2015-01-30 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed.
  Well, up to a point - it depends on exactly how this sterility is achieved; it may not be 100% waterproof, very few things really are, when you get right down to it. It could be that only 99.9% sterility was achieved, for example, so have the consequences of the small number of successful offspring been firmly established?
41. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Of course everyone who isn't irrationally afraid of GMOs is a Monsanto shill. It's the only possibly explanation.
42. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Wee, that's pretty much what remedies and cures do. they don't ALL work, and they have unpleasant potential side effects. Which we take into account and use the cure in cases where the side effect is not as bad as the problem it removes.
  And I suspect that this is the same here with mozzies.
  If they haven't DONE that check off, then I agree they need to do so before release.
  However, I believe they have. The problems possible are not as bad as the problem the mozzies produce.
  Remember, other species will take up their niche. Disimprovement is a good way of "naturally" removing a problem, and the protozoans won't have time to modify to occupy another host. Once the protozoans are gone, if the mozzies are still there, then we don't have to remove them any more.
43. Re:So.... by Idou · 2015-01-30 02:06 · Score: 2
  
  Silly and arrogant oversimplification gets modded up sky-high. . . . Ah, Slashdot. . . the OTHER bitter, brown substance I put inside myself every morning. . .
  
  --
  Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
44. Re:So.... by conquistadorst · 2015-01-30 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point. e.g. If you tilt the bowl in the wiki picture, the ball doesn't fall off the top of the bowl like in the first picture or roll away like in the third picture.. It just settles in at a different spot on the bottom of the bowl in the second picture, now-tilted slightly.
  
  This made me chuckle, I think your own argument flew right over your own head. As you've clearly pointed out, disrupting an the original equilibrium creates a new and different equilibrium. Yes, you sir are absolutely correct.
  So let's use an extreme example. Let's destroy photosynthesis driven life on this planet somehow. What happens then? Hey the ecosystem now will search our its new equilibrium which now only includes life that survive by feeding off the energy from geothermic vents! What's wrong? We've found our new equilibrium, clearly there's no fragility here. Everyone can keep calm and carry on :)
45. Re: So.... by luis_a_espinal · 2015-01-30 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hello my honey, hello my baby...hello my ragtime gal...
  +1 for that one. One of my favorite cartoon episodes.
46. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  New checks on population growth came up. We no longer need mosquitos to keep us in our place, when developed world affluence works vastly better.
  Developed world affluence keeps checks on developed world populations. For global population, free market capitalism (the thing that makes developed world affluence possible) actually helps increase it.
  That hedonist couple that the other AC joked about may not reproduce, but in all their consumption, they have directly or indirectly employed and fed hundreds if not thousands of people, and those people will reproduce. From the farmers who grow their food to the 3rd world workers who assembled their computers, all those people get to work and feed themselves and have more kids.
  What keeps human population in check is socialism. It is the equal and opposite reaction to capitalism. Capitalism extends lives. Socialism shortens them. Capitalism use industrialization to increase crop yields to feed more people allowing larger human populations? Socialism use industrialization to wage war and destroy economies to limit population growth. Capitalism digs up oil that helps human population growth in all sorts of ways? Socialism screams bloody murder about global warming telling us we need to stop using oil.
47. Re:So.... by TubeSteak · 2015-01-30 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Like how New Zealand has "re-stabilized" with a quarter of its birds extinct after the introduction of rats.
  It sounds like your problem is with the quality of the new equilibrium, not with the principle.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
48. Re:So.... by RavenLrD20k · 2015-01-30 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Your demands are moderate and perfectly reasonable compromises. What's not so reasonable is the FUD spread by the New-Age flakes that NoKaOi was referring to. Hint: The Flakes spouting "the way of nature" and "GMO causes all these diseases and alergies" are the same Flakes that spout "vaccines cause autism." I'm not saying that the majority of the anti-GMO crowd is as unreasonable (read: Dark Age Dumb) as the New-Age Flakes; I'm saying that the Flakes tend to speak louder in the media, which gives the voice of reason a much weaker platform to stand on.
49. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  That risk sounds Awwweessooooommmme!
50. Re:So.... by martas · 2015-01-30 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well duh. If all life on earth was destroyed, there'd be one hell of a stable equilibrium, but probably not one many of us would like to occur. Natural ecosystems can only be expected to be robust against perturbations they have faced regularly for a time, which usually doesn't include much of what humans do. As long as we rely on nature to survive, we shouldn't scoff at the idea that our actions can have disastrous consequences on our own habitat.
  
  --
  weinersmith
51. Re:So.... by Oil_Tan · 2015-01-30 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  GMO potato's are fucking up my potato gun, dammit. Starch sludge and corroding pvc components. GRRR
52. Re:So.... by gurps_npc · 2015-01-30 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct in principle but wrong in practice.
  Your belief that the fragile ecosystems would have self-destructed long ago is based on the belief that the ecosystem has always been fragile.
  The truth is that the ecosystem USED to be dynamically stable, 100 years ago.
  But then a top level predator came in and started screwing around with it. Namely Man. We divert water, and the dynamic ecosystem compensates. We kill the other predators, and it compensates. We fill the air with too much carbon di-oxide and it compensates. We pump poisons into and it compensates more.
  But after all this stress, it has reached it's compensation capacity. Now it has BECOME fragile. It wasn't fragile 200, 100, or even 20 years ago.
  The reason it didn't self-destruct long ago is that it was strong 100 years ago, but isn't anymore.
  If you screw around with anything long enough, eventually it becomes fragile and tiny little change will push the whole thing over.
  I am not saying that the mosquito will be that change. For all I know, we can do another 50 things before we push it over the edge. But I am saying that your argument is itself heavily flawed and does not hold water.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
53. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  What is the down side? Clearly no mosquitos trapped in amber for future scientists to dig up 100 million years from now, to then extract DNA from and thus recreate the human species through cloning, making Jurassic Park a reality!
54. Re:So.... by gatkinso · 2015-01-30 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  That is a huge assumption - now, I only took the biology survey class in college so I am no expert, but IIRC insects (an even animals) can be pretty particular about their meals.
  But then again, I suspect that Anopholes will simply adapt to this change and we'll end up with an even bigger problem.
  
  --
  I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
55. Re:So.... by neurovish · 2015-01-30 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
  You heard somebody say that the bite from a GMO mosquito will cause gluten intolerance? boggle
  Wait until they hear that the modified DNA for the mosquitoes is taken from herpes and E. Coli.
56. Re:So.... by neurovish · 2015-01-30 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  There are over 80 different species of mosquitos in Florida. This method only targets one of those species. There will still be plenty of mosquitos.
  That's a relief. For a second I was worried that this could get out of control and kill all of the mosquitoes.
57. Re: So.... by fishthegeek · 2015-01-30 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I am humbled to be in your great presence AC. Damn funny.
  
  --
  load "$",8,1
58. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  That worked so well in Lake Ontario! The Round Goby boy sure loves to eat those Zebra Mussels, we went out sampling invertebrates this year for a masters project and just looking around, those two species are pretty much all that is left. (So all we need now is for the local fisherman population to die out, since pretty much none of those things are good for humans to eat at all, and voila the balance is magically restored.)
59. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Tell them about the Twinkie.
60. Re:So.... by swillden · 2015-01-30 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  If all life on earth was destroyed, there'd be one hell of a stable equilibrium, but probably not one many of us would like to occur.
  
  If that were an even remotely-likely outcome, it would have happened. Life is extraordinarily good at surviving and evolving new equilibria.
  
  Natural ecosystems can only be expected to be robust against perturbations they have faced regularly for a time, which usually doesn't include much of what humans do.
  Meh, the history of life on this planet is one long series of massive, unexpected perturbations, ranging from ice ages so severe that the equatorial seas are covered with several meters of ice, to massive volcanic eruptions that block most global insolation for years, to massive meteor strikes. In addition, the ice core records show that the planet has undergone radical climate change (much faster and more extreme than what we're currently seeing) without any cause at all as far as we can detect, as recent as 60K years ago.
  
  As long as we rely on nature to survive, we shouldn't scoff at the idea that our actions can have disastrous consequences on our own habitat.
  Certainly. Equally, we shouldn't ignore the fact that doing nothing at all (assuming we could) will also have disastrous consequences on our own habitat. Earth changes all the time, in all sorts of ways. If we want stability we need to learn to actively engineer the planet.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
61. Re:So.... by DigitalPagan · 2015-01-30 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  There are over 80 different species of mosquitos in Florida. This method only targets one of those species. There will still be plenty of mosquitos.
  And I say your mosquito eradication doesn't go too far enough.
62. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Many Slashdotters are not on the ecological side of things, but more on the software development side of things. This view is likely common to some subsets of study.
  
  You'll notice the link provided is to mechanical equilibria.
  Natural 'dynamic equilibria' may function similarly, but it's possible to completely remove the plane without realizing it until it's too late.
63. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  That hedonist couple that the other AC joked about may not reproduce, but in all their consumption, they have directly or indirectly employed and fed hundreds if not thousands of people, and those people will reproduce. From the farmers who grow their food to the 3rd world workers who assembled their computers, all those people get to work and feed themselves and have more kids.
  The developing world people would have reproduced anyway, and if they were less affluent, they would have reproduced more than they actually did!
  
  What keeps human population in check is socialism. It is the equal and opposite reaction to capitalism.
  It's not an opposite to capitalism. After all, we have plenty of societies that have combinations of both capitalism and socialism. And socialism can curb population growth in the same way as capitalism by making most people a bit more affluent.
  
  Socialism screams bloody murder about global warming telling us we need to stop using oil.
  This is a non sequitur. Screaming about global warming doesn't make people go away or reproduce less.
64. Re:So.... by s.petry · 2015-01-30 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Likewise, anyone that disagrees with genetic modification must be an irrational hippie right? Even though we have science to show some of the negative consequences of manipulation there can be no middle ground or debate, only the extreme views matter.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
65. Re:So.... by s.petry · 2015-01-30 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you similarly complain about the FUD spread by companies like Monsanto claiming anyone not approving of them 100% is a whacko? Who gets portrayed in media is who the establishment that owns the media wants to portray. This should not be confused with a rational debate.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
66. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Were you trying to say something?
67. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  How would it both spread AND wipe out populations?
68. Re:So.... by cpotoso · 2015-01-30 03:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except for the fact that 1 affluent human uses more resources than 10 not so affluent.
69. Re:So.... by martas · 2015-01-30 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  If that were an even remotely-likely outcome, it would have happened. Life is extraordinarily good at surviving and evolving new equilibria.
  That was merely an illustration that stable does not mean desirable, not a suggestion that such an outcome is likely.
  
  Meh, the history of life on this planet is one long series of massive, unexpected perturbations, ranging from ice ages so severe that the equatorial seas are covered with several meters of ice, to massive volcanic eruptions that block most global insolation for years, to massive meteor strikes. In addition, the ice core records show that the planet has undergone radical climate change (much faster and more extreme than what we're currently seeing) without any cause at all as far as we can detect, as recent as 60K years ago.
  Sure, and the history of life on earth is one of massive, unexpected mass extinctions, which often followed those massive, unexpected perturbations, because those aren't the kind of perturbations that natural systems can be robust against (hence my qualifier that the perturbations occur "regularly for a time"; you know, things like winter and summer, hurricanes, etc). It's certainly inevitable, but I'd rather not induce that on my own species any sooner than necessary.
  
  Equally, we shouldn't ignore the fact that doing nothing at all (assuming we could) will also have disastrous consequences on our own habitat. Earth changes all the time, in all sorts of ways. If we want stability we need to learn to actively engineer the planet.
  Yeah, I'm all for that. In the meantime, however, I'll continue to be a bit pissed off when some arrogant prick on slashdot trivializes all environmental concerns because he's apparently taken "higher-level math or engineering courses" and thinks he understands "how dynamic systems function". The nerve of that dumbass...
  
  --
  weinersmith
70. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  "decimating over 95 percent" :|
71. Re: So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Says the angry web developer.
72. Re:So.... by omfglearntoplay · 2015-01-30 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Two things.
  1. A different possibly worse mosquito species may take over. We have all sorts of weird species from other continents introduced into the southern USA. If this attempt is to kill invasive species without introducing a new invasive species, maybe it is fine, as long as a worse species won't take over. If it is to kill native species, then it's a bad idea for certain.
  2. Mosquitoes pollinate flowers. Nowadays everybody knows that only the females bite... and they only do so right before laying eggs. The rest of the time mosquitoes are busy pollinating flowers to plants everybody, human and animal, needs to survive. I'm not sure I'd want to see a huge change in pollination. Remember all the scares about honeybees dying out and all sorts of possible problems with pollination? Well mosquitoes are a huge part of the ecosystem in many places, like Florida. What are the risks?
73. Re:So.... by lars5 · 2015-01-30 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Easy there, Randy. This isn't the SarcastaBall Hug-a-thon.
  
  --
  Don't Panic.
74. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  The developing world people would have reproduced anyway
  '
  Remember we're talking about population growth. It's not just about reproduction, but whether you can sustain a growing population. That requires productive work to feed your people. Work the affluent developed world provides.
  
  and if they were less affluent, they would have reproduced more than they actually did!
  Sure, but they would also die more. People used to have 20 kids. Most of those kids used to die young. Even the adults used to die young. In the end you won't see huge population growth. It is by becoming affluent that pushes the limit on how much people you can sustain.
  
  It's not an opposite to capitalism. After all, we have plenty of societies that have combinations of both capitalism and socialism.
  
  Nobody said opposites cannot coexist. That they do doesn't invalidate my statement. I say equal and opposite like Newton's 3rd law. They're forces that push against each other. There is no fixed equilibrium which is why you see those combinations.
  
  This is a non sequitur. Screaming about global warming doesn't make people go away or reproduce less.
  But that's what socialists want. If they had their way (and some will say they do in some places), they would implement policies which restrict oil production and consumption. I say they scream bloody murder because currently, the socialists aren't winning that battle.
75. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the fact that 1 affluent human uses more resources than 10 not so affluent.
  Think about it. If we were somehow to hold affluence constant, the affluent population will have shrunk slightly, while the not so affluent population will grow exponentially. Even a small population of not so affluent will eventually consume more than a vast affluent population, unless you check their population growth somehow.
76. Re:So.... by ShanghaiBill · 2015-01-30 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the fact that 1 affluent human uses more resources than 10 not so affluent.
  Resource consumption is not proportional to affluence. Singapore is more affluent than America, but consumes far fewer resources per person. Urbanization decreases resource consumption more than poverty. A reasonably affluent person living in an apartment in a dense city, without a personal car, likely consumes far fewer resources than a poor slash-and-burn subsistence farmer.
77. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Remember we're talking about population growth. It's not just about reproduction, but whether you can sustain a growing population.
  No, population growth is about reproduction not sustainability. It's an ugly fact that poorer people have more children even in low food conditions.
  
  They're forces that push against each other.
  Ok, I see your use here. I'll just point out that "opposite forces" quickly lose their meaning when there are more than two forces in play.
  
  But that's what socialists want. If they had their way (and some will say they do in some places), they would implement policies which restrict oil production and consumption. I say they scream bloody murder because currently, the socialists aren't winning that battle.
  I disagree. Chinese socialists aren't on board with this and they're a huge part of the group. Socialists from oil-producing countries aren't on board either (eg, Venezuela).
  
  But having said that , I do believe the shrillness of the arguments for global warming has a lot to do with losing the overall war for that.
78. Re:So.... by Gliscameria · 2015-01-30 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine you end up killing the things that eat the mosquitoes. I figured, animals eat plants, mosquitoes feed on animals, bats feed on mosquitoes, plants feed on bat shit.
  
  --
  X
79. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Lots could go wrong:
  http://www.reasons.org/articles/why-would-god-create-mosquitoes
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito (if you, like me, would prefer someone not referring to a mythical creature creating something)
  Every "pest" or "weed" you see serves a purpose. Those dandelions for example, they actually help break up the ground for other vegetation to eventually come in and take root. They are also very nutritious for nearly all living beings who can consume vegetation, humans included.
  I've found myself asking the same question, "what purpose do these pests serve?", mice, rats, mosquitoes, etc. They are all here for a purpose and when our "scientist" think they can fuck around with that, well they are just 100% wrong. They will destroy eco-systems faster than any amount of carbon put into the air by the rest of the population.
80. Re:So.... by smartr · 2015-01-30 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think in the case of Florida and the gulf coast, it might be better to say that a wetland is an equilibrium, and so is a coastline.
81. Re:So.... by Coren22 · 2015-01-30 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that you could call anyone in Chinese government truely socialist anymore. The only socialist programs I can think about is the big projects they do, and their central planning (power, infrastructure....).
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
82. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Nearly all surviving balances in nature are stable equilibria [wikipedia.org]. They're not fragile at all.
  You do realize of course that the majority of the species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct and that we are in the middle a mass extinction right now, right? One major driver of such extinctions are environmental changes. Your argument ignores that and is foolish.
83. Re:So.... by Coren22 · 2015-01-30 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Silly, arrogant oversimplication, maybe. Correct, yes. This mosquito is an invasive species, therefore it already upset the equilibrium. Removing the species should reset it to where it was if it didn't already cause an extinction.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
84. Re:So.... by swillden · 2015-01-30 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, and the history of life on earth is one of massive, unexpected mass extinctions, which often followed those massive, unexpected perturbations
  Mass extinctions which are, most likely, also the biggest driver of speciation and diversity :-)
  I think the Holocene Extinction may be the exception to that trend, though.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
85. Re:So.... by Sloppy · 2015-01-30 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
  Yes, and he just told you, but you weren't listening. Having a blood-bourne disease vector has the benefit of staying the wrathful hand of Gaea.
  Are you trying to persuade us that this disease is somehow important enough to be a bad thing, or are you making your argument to a god?
  If you're so intimately familiar with a values and agendas of the gods, then on humanity's behalf I request that you also please explain to Cthulhu that the stars aren't right.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
86. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  ...and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population.
  So... they killed about 9,5% of targeted mosquitoes? Hardly an impressive result.
  The modern meaning of the word decimate is: "Kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of". But you probably already knew that. So why did you not know that the historical meaning, "kill every tenth individual", is not relevant in this context? Trying to prove to everyone how smart you are? An attempt at humor?
87. Re:So.... by Minwee · 2015-01-30 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  Not my choice of words...but their meaning is clear.
  Their meaning is "I don't know the meaning of the word decimate".
88. Re:So.... by Minwee · 2015-01-30 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed.
  Best said in a mad scientist voice with a "mwah hah hah" at the end.
  "That's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death!"
89. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that you could call anyone in Chinese government truely socialist anymore. The only socialist programs I can think about is the big projects they do, and their central planning (power, infrastructure....).
  Bingo. Environmentalism is not socialism. It is a third independent attribute. Another example of this is the antics of the former USSR which among other things nearly destroyed the Aral Sea.
90. Re:So.... by martas · 2015-01-30 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Haha yeah sure, I'm not complaining about any of the past ones since I wouldn't be here without them, I just don't want any future ones. Kind of like how some historians thing the Mongol massacres were cool 'cause they helped move things along (and, you know, pretty much directly led to global European dominance), but probably wouldn't be all that giddy about, dunno, a nuclear holocaust even if it meant breaking the status quo to allow, say, sub-Saharan world dominance.
  
  --
  weinersmith
91. Re:So.... by Zephyn · 2015-01-30 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos.
  And another Saturday afternoon SyFy movie plot was born.
92. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
  That sounds like a great movie!!!!
93. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  and in the Keys more often males have sex with males...
  I am wondering if FDA tested this variation?
94. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  No, population growth is about reproduction not sustainability.
  No, if your population had 1000 births but 1000 deaths in a given period of time, you are not experiencing population growth.
  
  It's an ugly fact that poorer people have more children even in low food conditions
  The ugly fact is that in low food conditions, more people die faster. This is not good for population growth.
  
  I'll just point out that "opposite forces" quickly lose their meaning when there are more than two forces in play.
  They're meaningful enough for the high level observation I was making.
  The original response was to your notion that developed world affluence keeps population growth in check. I'm pointing out that wealth actually helps populations grow. I generalize wealth creation as the result of capitalism, and opposition to it as socialism.
  
  I disagree. Chinese socialists aren't on board with this and they're a huge part of the group. Socialists from oil-producing countries aren't on board either (eg, Venezuela).
  In my view, people are socialist or capitalist by action, not by what they call themselves.
  Chinese and Venezueleans may call themselves socialist, but if their action is to support an activity that ultimately helps grow wealth (which in turn grows the population), they are actually supporting capitalism. Socialism is to reject that activity out of some twisted sense of obligation to some "greater good".
  As to environmentalism, that could fall under capitalism or socialism, again depending on action. If your environmentalist action is use proper science and evidence to figure out what is the best way to ensure the environment continues to allow us to create more wealth, then you are engaging in capitalism.
  If your environmentalist action is relying on shoddy climate science to scare people into WE GOTTA ACT NOW and insist we give up oil even if it means reducing our energy consumption and quality of life, then you are engaging in socialism.
95. Re:So.... by RavenLrD20k · 2015-01-30 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Do you similarly complain about the FUD spread by companies like Monsanto claiming anyone not approving of them 100% is a whacko?
  Yes. I do.
  I never said there weren't Flakes on both sides. Deal in absolutes, and you're most likely a Flake, too.
96. Re:So.... by Rich0 · 2015-01-30 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  How so? Food source... pollinator... is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
  There are many different species of mosquitoes. Only some of them are disease vectors. The Anopheles mosquito, which carries malaria, used to be common in Southern Europe and parts of America. When they were exterminated, they were displaced by less harmful species, with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
  Well, if they're different species, then by definition they don't mate. That means that releasing the modified mosquitos of the dangerous species won't affect the harmless ones, and hopefully as you suggest the benign ones will take over.
97. Re:So.... by TheRealHocusLocus · 2015-01-30 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  We're talking about mosquitoes. I'll accept the risk.
  You're placing a guaranteed positive outcome for the human race over any number of imaginings of potentially negative outcomes.
  Congratulations.
  When Diadema Antillarum , commonly known as the Caribbean God Damned Motherfucking Black Sea Urchin, began to die off in the 80s from an unknown cause... we're talking ~97% mortality... we knew we were in deep shit. Any day the World Wildlife Fund would issue a press release and lobby regional governments to cease all human activity. The Greenpeace ship would arrive and putt-putt around harassing fishermen, charter boats or anything that did not resemble a sea urchin or baby seal. There would be impassioned speeches at the UN to tie urchin preservation with environmental sustainability so they could use financial aid as a blunt instrument to conk small nation-states over the head.
  What a relief. None of this happened.
  Certainly the young girl who stepped on one and screamed, and her father who ran into the water to help her and wound up with dozens of spines in his feet and legs (which break off leaving the tips in the body), hospitalized with sepsis, they didn't object. The only creature that might have spoken up, Balistes Vetula , commonly known as Ole Wife --- whose pouty lips are perfectly suited to this spine-plucking lip smacking treat --- was too busy dining on shrimp and crabs to feel threatened. The urchins have come back but not in obscene numbers as before.
  So not all die-offs are bad. Send those Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes home to Jesus.
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
98. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'm wary of GMO. Not from a scientific standpoint, but from an economic and societal standpoint.
  Yes, the *science* can do great things. Equally, the science can also undoubtedly be used to do very bad things. It just depends whether you ultimately trust the billionaire bosses of a very small number of private corporations to do the right thing by humankind. Fellow slashdotters - just think of a few billionaire bosses of corporations that come to mind, and whether you would trust them completely...
  GMO corporations exist to make a profit, and the assiduous work of the GMO PR machine with stories of the good that it can do might ultimately lead to irrevocable changes. Mosquitoes? Good riddance to them, I say, and good on the gmo science that might make it possible, but who knows? GMO is the sort of technology that could easily be weaponized in future. Is *that* crazy?
99. Re:So.... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-30 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Rather, it's the implication of their mistake.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
100. Re:So.... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-30 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's an extremely unfavorable variation, with no hope of competition against regular fertile mosquitoes. If only 0.001 of of these mosquitoes can breed, and only 0.001 of their offspring can breed...well you see how long that gives the variation.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
101. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  No matter how smart the folks are that developed these genetically modified mosquitos are, are they smart enough to see all of the possible un-intended consequences of releasing them?
102. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-30 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, if your population had 1000 births but 1000 deaths in a given period of time, you are not experiencing population growth.
  If you have positive population growth, it isn't because your population is experiencing a negative rate of deaths.
  
  The ugly fact is that in low food conditions, more people die faster. This is not good for population growth.
  And yet population growth still happens. As I noted, birth rate goes up too and there are plenty of examples of places over the past century that had low food supply yet still had high population growth rates. It's only when a society transitions to not enough food per person to keep everyone alive (which incidentally happens frequently during a war or famine so that it's not just a slight change in food per person), that we transition into higher death rates than birth rates.
  
  My point here is that the dynamic between population growth and decline doesn't gradually nose over as food supply and wealth dwindles.
  
  The original response was to your notion that developed world affluence keeps population growth in check. I'm pointing out that wealth actually helps populations grow. I generalize wealth creation as the result of capitalism, and opposition to it as socialism.
  And I'm pointing out that you are merely wrong here. We have lots of evidence that wealth at all levels of modern human development correlates with lower population growth. Your generalization is wrong as well. Capitalism is not defined as things good for society, such as creation of wealth, and socialism as things bad for society, such as taking wealth away. They are merely somewhat different approaches to similar problems.
  
  Chinese and Venezueleans may call themselves socialist, but if their action is to support an activity that ultimately helps grow wealth (which in turn grows the population), they are actually supporting capitalism. Socialism is to reject that activity out of some twisted sense of obligation to some "greater good".
  So call them "socialists" because of their actions then. It's a silly argument to make and again depends on a white hat/black hat view of capitalism and socialism which isn't true.
  
  I personally heavily favor capitalism in a society, but I don't make the mistake of discounting socialism policies just because because they don't work at the huge doses that have been tried over the past couple hundred years.
103. Re:So.... by jklovanc · 2015-01-30 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  I was just explaining how the supply of insects will not be significantly decreased by decimating one vector species.
104. Re: So.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking moron.
105. Re:So.... by Uberbah · 2015-01-30 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  And if he had limited his rant to the mosquito species in question, he'd have a great point. Not just because the mosquitoes are non-native, but because there are dozens of other species for frogs/bats/dragon flies to feed on if this one dies out.
  But he didn't. He went on as if ecosystems are bullet resistant, when anyone who's ever heard of the term "invasive species" knows that to be false.
106. Re:So.... by Uberbah · 2015-01-30 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  And if he'd limited his rant to the eradication of this species, he'd have a great point. Because it's non-native, and there are ~80 other species of mosquito for predators to munch on in the same area.
  But that's not what he did. He put on his clown shoes and argued that ecosystems are bullet-resistant, when anyone with a remedial knowledge of history or biology knows is not the case.
107. Re:So.... by khallow · 2015-01-31 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or releasing genetically modified mind blowingly hot humans into areas with human overpopulation issues, so that all the offsprings or grandkids are infertile.
  I think it more likely that someone will engineer a sexually transmitted disease which induces infertility and is tailored to ethnic groups that they don't like.
108. Re:So.... by surd1618 · 2015-01-31 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  David Quammen postulated that mosquitoes protect forests from us. According to him, undisturbed forests have few mosquitoes, but once we start fucking them up, they swarm. I think this is all the more reason to poison their bloodline; if their abundance is a side-effect of our habitation, then we should reduce our footprint.
109. Re: So.... by RH434 · 2015-02-02 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  That was Awesome! (Truly worthy of awe!)
110. Re:So.... by riverat1 · 2015-02-05 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of a song by Fred Small: "Hot Frogs on the Loose" about radioactive frogs at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory getting loose.
What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:36 · Score: 2, Funny

I predict that everything will go exactly according to plan. There will be no unforeseen consequences. Nope. No way Jose.
1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Z00L00K · 2015-01-29 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or it will just not work at all. 2 years from now there won't be a difference.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You know what I hate?
  Someone does something using physics, and that's great.
  Someone does something using chemistry, and that's great.
  Someone does something using biology, and everyone rushes to make the overused comment you just made and act as if they have, just by sitting on their couch and speculating, discovered the terrible flaw with the idea that those arrogant scientists who spent years in their field never thought of.
  Something is wrong here.
3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 18:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why predict when you can retrodict?
  
  In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by icebike · 2015-01-29 18:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I predict that everything will go exactly according to plan. There will be no unforeseen consequences. Nope. No way Jose.
  Time to calm down.
  This has been done for years, using irradiated males to breed with females which then lay sterile eggs.
  So far, no monster mosquitoes.
  It should be obvious to you that this plan will result in a self eradicating strain.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by fahrbot-bot · 2015-01-29 18:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So far, no monster mosquitoes.
  Next made for SyFy movie: Sharkitoes
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by meglon · 2015-01-29 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  But your planets historical documents clearly show them.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by captainpanic · 2015-01-29 20:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  This has the potential to affect people directly. They are not talking about an experiment somewhere in a lab. They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard. People are responsible for their own well-being, and they should understand the risks that affect their lives. They are right to do a risk assessment. They see a potentially large effect, and do not yet understand the chance of it going wrong, so they logically assume the worst and therefore scream and shout. It's up to those arrogant scientists to better explain the experiment that is about to take place in people's backyards.
  Also, biology experiments have gone wrong before. Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.
8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Rei · 2015-01-29 20:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
  
  They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard.
  
  Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
  
  They are right to do a risk assessment.
  
  And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
  
  Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.
  Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
  
  --
  I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 21:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
  That's assuming everything goes to plan. Also, these mosquitoes aren't infertile, they produce offspring that are supposed to die before reaching breeding age. What happens if a small percentage don't?
10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  So climate change which merkins don't believe in either because jeebus said abuse the earth how you want Isn't a big chemistry experiment?
11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by captainpanic · 2015-01-29 22:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
  My point was all about what happens when the mosquitos are not as infertile as planned. Or when another unforeseen event takes place. Obviously, if all the promises by these scientists are true, we have no problem. Unfortunately, promises made through the media (and advertising) are often not as simple as it seems.
  
  They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard.
  Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
  If chemical companies are going to dump something into my backyard, I will scream and shout just as loud, if not much louder. The OP said that people only complain about biology, not physics and chemistry. Obviously, once "chemistry" becomes something huge, (e.g. "fracking in your own backyard"), this little claim stops being true. If chemistry comes to your backyard, people WILL complain (and rightly so, even when the experts say that all is well).
  
  They are right to do a risk assessment.
  And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
  You seem to claim that people should just trust experts. I claim that experts should attempt to inform the public better, thereby earning their trust...
  
  Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.
  Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
  So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot. Grass, as far as I know, is pretty much the bottom of the food chain.
12. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by hackertourist · 2015-01-29 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  But is 95% enough? It reduces the problem for a while, but as long as there are viable mosquitoes left, they'll start breeding again until you're back where you started.
13. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  So far, no monster mosquitoes.
  Next made for SyFy movie: Sharkitoes
  Check out the SyFy movie Mansquito! It awesomely bad!
14. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Rei · 2015-01-29 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  What happens if a small percentage don't?
  Then they didn't get the gene to kill them. Your point?
  
  --
  I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
15. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Rei · 2015-01-30 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  My point was all about what happens when the mosquitos are not as infertile as planned.
  
  If some offspring survive that means that they didn't get the gene to kill them for some reason. Aka, they're just like wild populations. So.....?
  
  If chemical companies are going to dump something into my backyard, I will scream and shout just as loud
  Your back yard is full of the intentional products of chemical companies. Here we're talking about the intentional products of genetic engineering. You're trying to change the situation by comparing waste products with intentional products.
  
  You seem to claim that people should just trust experts. I claim that experts should attempt to inform the public better, thereby earning their trust...
  Sorry, but Joe Blow GED is never going to become an expert on genetic engineering. Ever. Period. And the same goes for the vast majority of the public.
  
  So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot
  .
  Got any examples that aren't introduced species? We're talking about reducing or eliminating species within an ecosystem, not adding new ones from totally different ecosystem. And part of the reason rabbits were so uncontrolled in Australia anyway was because settlers had killed off almost all of the top predators. One could easily imagine that, for example, tasmanian tigers would have quite enjoyed a rabbit feast. Dingo numbers were also shaply culled in the areas with the highest rabbit populations.
  
  --
  I would have you sign my banana, but it's on the roof.
16. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by squiggleslash · 2015-01-30 00:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Then nothing is different.
  Female mosquitoes aren't going to breed more because of this. Part of what makes mosquitoes so unpleasant is that their breeding mechanism is awkward and requires, for example, blood - our blood - to work. Finding a partner to breed with is the last of their worries.
  As a result, what this boils down to is:
  Status quo: virtually all females will breed with a regular mosquito, lifestyle unchanged.
  Changed to: sizable numbers of females will breed with a GMO mosquito instead of a regular mosquito.
  If plan works, enough females will go with the GMO, and breed shorter lifespan mosquitoes of their own, resulting in a (probably temporary, alas) reduction in the mosquito population. If the plan fails, either because the altered genes fail to do their job, or because females avoid the GMO mosquitoes somehow, NOTHING IS DIFFERENT.
  What's the issue here? What can actually go wrong that's worse than the status quo? What scenario are you seeing that could happen as a result of this particular project? It's not like this is something out of a Michael Crichton novel. "We think we can reduce the mosquito population by releasing this RADIOACTIVE MOSQUITOS into the population! Their UNTESTED RANDOM GENETIC DIFFERENCES will render the entire population dead within the week! Also let's breed the mosquitos with FROGS just beforehand! Nothing could possibly go wrong!"
  We know the generic differences. We know what we're releasing are otherwise regular mosquitos. This is not that terrible novel.
  As someone who has good medical reasons to fear mosquito bites more than most, I sincerely hope this works. And I applaud them for trying.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
17. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Jason+Levine · 2015-01-30 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that people see "GMO", think "what's the worst thing that could happen" (whether or not that outcome is likely or even possible), and then assume that this has a strong chance of happening. At the vary least, they assume that scientists haven't ruled it out because the article they are reading online didn't specifically address what they thought of.
  For example:
  If a female mosquito mates with a GMO mosquito the genetic reactions could cause the next generation of mosquitoes to be twice as big!!!! (You need to include many exclamation points to make it scarier.) Now, the article doesn't specifically say that this can't happen so this means that it's not only possible but likely. If they release these GMO mosquitoes, we'll be overrun with giant, blood-sucking mosquitoes!!!!!!
  (Never mind that this isn't genetically possible. It's likely because someone somewhere thought of it.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
18. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Jason+Levine · 2015-01-30 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  That's the beauty of this. While the anti-GMO folks are railing on about imagined long-term consequences, this shows that there really aren't any. It takes out a vast majority of the population for one generation. If you run this program for one year and then stop, these mosquitoes will either come back on their own or their niche will be taken over by other mosquito species. (Remember that not all mosquitoes are the same. There are 80 different mosquito species in Florida. This program is only targeting one of them.) Either way, the ecosystem survives even if this particular species doesn't and if this species survives, the GMO gene doesn't.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
19. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
20. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by darronb · 2015-01-30 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. My. God.
  If that cycle happens just a couple times... the mosquitos could be larger than the planet and their gravity would crush us all!
  Stop the apocalypse! These arrogant sciencey people must be stopped at all costs!
  Where'd I put my magic polished rock? I'm feeling nervous so the energy in the groundwater under my feet must not be in balance. I need to spend a few hours rubbing my magic energy tuning rock to put things right. We all have to be agents to change to make the world better, you know. *condescending look*
  (Sadly, that last part isn't an exaggeration. I knew people who really thought like that)
21. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Digital+Mage · 2015-01-30 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  They could cross promote with Frito-Lay's Doritos and come up with a new flavor....Sharkitos, shark flavored Doritos.
22. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
  i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom
23. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  DDT was a good thing right?
  Doramad toothpaste?
  Radithor(look this one up it is interesting)?
  Lead Paint?
  Asbestos?
  I wonder why people don't trust the "Experts".
  
  Got any examples that aren't introduced species? We're talking about reducing or eliminating species within an ecosystem, not adding new ones from totally different ecosystem. And part of the reason rabbits were so uncontrolled in Australia anyway was because settlers had killed off almost all of the top predators. One could easily imagine that, for example, tasmanian tigers would have quite enjoyed a rabbit feast. Dingo numbers were also shaply culled [royalsocie...ishing.org] in the areas with the highest rabbit populations.
  Alge Blooms have huge impacts upon plant, animal and human life. While not a reduction it shows that something at the bottom of the food chain can drasticly affect higher order organisms.
  Plankton is another example. A drastic reduction in plankton population would cause many higher order organisms which feed upon the plankton to starve or have their species population reduce due to the scarcity of food.
  Think and analyze before you show your ignorance...
24. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by squiggleslash · 2015-01-30 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  As a liberal/left winger, I have to say I'm disappointed that so many on "our side" has made GMO our Global Warming. It's one of the most awesome technologies ever developed, and it has so much potential to improve the world.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
25. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Experts should be trusted, because they understand the complexity and nuance of the particular subject. In all instances when shit has hit the fan, who do you think figured out that something was wrong, how it was going wrong, and why it was going wrong? It was experts.
  As for experts attempting to inform the public, let me enlighten you as to a personal experience as an expert attempting to inform the public about something. The public has two major reactions: 1) Disinterest. 2) Violent misinformed opposition. The experts are better off focusing on their job. A public who doesn't care is difficult to be made to care. A public who is misinformed is likely to see the expert as part of the problem. It's rare to find someone who is seeking information (curious) and willing to listen. The amount of garbage, hate, and hand waving one has to go through to reach that rare person is simply not worth it.
26. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  "What happens if a small percentage don't?"
  Or worse, what happens if a small percentage actually start producing MORE offspring? I seriously doubt our understanding of genetics is complete enough to rule out any of these possibilities. This is a mistake humans keep making over and over. We develop a technology and then immediately start blindly applying it to all sorts of situations before our understanding of that technology has matured far enough, and we end up creating more problems and more destruction.
27. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by neurovish · 2015-01-30 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
  This has the potential to affect people directly. They are not talking about an experiment somewhere in a lab. They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard. People are responsible for their own well-being, and they should understand the risks that affect their lives. They are right to do a risk assessment. They see a potentially large effect, and do not yet understand the chance of it going wrong, so they logically assume the worst and therefore scream and shout. It's up to those arrogant scientists to better explain the experiment that is about to take place in people's backyards.
  Also, biology experiments have gone wrong before. Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.
  They've done the same thing in the Cayman Islands. You can look there and see what the impact was.
28. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by turp182 · 2015-01-30 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I see two ways it could be sustained.
  First, just release more modified insects every year. This makes sense if doing so is cheaper than the medical costs associated with the diseases (except the cost is then borne by another party, but it would be more efficient from an economic perspective if this is the case).
  Second, maybe other species of mosquitoes eventually take over the ecosystem niche filled by the one being targeted. I could see this happen over a few years of treatment, basically making them extinct from the local ecosystem.
  
  --
  BlameBillCosby.com
29. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by neurovish · 2015-01-30 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot. Grass, as far as I know, is pretty much the bottom of the food chain.
  Make sure you list the Aedes aegypti mosquito is on your invasive species list for the Florida Keys. Particularly relevant since those are the ones they are trying to get rid of. I don't think anybody release rabbits in Australia to control the invasive rabbit population.
30. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  This would obviously be a dominant gene.
  If their kids have the gene, they die.
  If they don't have the gene, they live.
  Anything that dies won't spread the gene, and anything that lives won't have the gene to spread.
  -W
31. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  So far, no monster mosquitoes.
  Buddy, have you SEEN a florida mosquito?
32. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by icebike · 2015-01-30 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Buddy, have you SEEN a florida mosquito?
  Pffffft. The twin engine mosquito in Alaska eat those Florida skeeters for lunch. By the dozen.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
33. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by blue9steel · 2015-01-30 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
  The general point is that things can have unintended side effects. DDT was once considered so safe we sprayed it on people directly, now not so much.
34. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by theArtificial · 2015-01-30 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, DDT, the first on your list. Forbes has a neat article about it, here's what they reference. A well-known entomologist documents some of the misstatements in Carson’s Silent Spring, the 1962 book that poisoned public opinion against DDT and other pesticides.
  
  Page 99. Carson vividly describes the death of a bird that she thought may have been poisoned by a pesticide, but nowhere in the book does she describes the deaths of any of the people who were dying of malaria, yellow fever, plague, sleeping sickness, or other diseases that are transmitted by insects. Her propaganda in Silent Spring contributed greatly to the banning of insecticides that were capable of preventing human deaths. Carson shares the responsibility for literally millions of deaths among the poor people in underdeveloped nations. Dr. William Bowers, head of the Entomology Department at the University of Arizona, said in 1986 that DDT is the most significant discovery of all time, and “in malaria control alone it saved almost 3 billion lives.”
  
  Rachel Carson’s lack of concern for human lives endangered by diseases transmitted by insects is revealed on page 187, where she writes: “Only yesterday mankind lived in fear of the scourges of smallpox, cholera and plague that once swept nations before them. Now our major concern is no longer with the disease organisms that once were omnipresent; sanitation, better living conditions, and new drugs have given us a high degree of control over infectious disease. Today we are concerned with a different kind of hazard that lurks in our environment—a hazard we ourselves have introduced into our world as our modern way of life has evolved.”
  
  Surely Carson was aware that the greatest threats to humans are diseases such as malaria, typhus, yellow fever, Chagas’s disease, African sleeping sickness, and a number of types of Leishmaniasis and tick-borne bacterial and rickettsial diseases. She deliberately avoids mentioning any of these, because they could be controlled only by the appropriate use of insecticides, especially DDT. Carson evidently preferred to sacrifice those millions of lives rather than advocate any usage of such chemicals.
  SNIP
  
  The dead birds Wallace sent out for subsequent study were analyzed by a method that detected only “total chlorine content” and could not determine what kind of chlorine was present; none was analyzed for mercury contamination). It was obviously highly irresponsible for Wallace and Carson to jump to the conclusion that the Michigan State University robins were being killed by DDT, and especially for Carson to highlight the false theory in her book long after the truth was evident.
  
  In many feeding experiments birds, including robins, were forced to ingest great quantities of DDT (and its breakdown product, DDE). Wallace did not provide any evidence that indicated the Michigan State University robins may have been killed by those chemicals. Researcher Joseph Hickey at the University of Wisconsin had testified before the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on DDT specifically that he could not kill any robins by overdosing them with DDT because the birds simply passed it through their digestive tract and eliminated it in their feces. Many other feeding experiments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and various university researchers repeatedly showed that DDT and DDE in the diet could not have killed wild birds under field conditions. If Carson had mentioned these pertinent details it would have devastated her major theme, which continued to be the awful threats posed by DDT to all nonhuman creatures on the face of the Earth. Instead of providing the facts that would clarify such conditions, she spent several more pages
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
35. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by reve_etrange · 2015-01-30 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to the obvious factual error, the long-term effects of conventional breeding (using radiologically or chemically induced random mutations) are far worse than recombinaton technologies (which create known variants).
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
36. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  I was under the impression that the point was to reduce the number of living disease carriers, not wiping out or controlling the mosquito populations. The summary said that the modified mosquitoes will have their offspring iff their parents carry the targeted diseases.
37. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  This particular type of mosquito being targeted is an introduced species as well. Why aren't you crying about the impact they had on the ecosystem when they were introduced via the Port of Houston in 1985?
38. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-04 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, but to be pedantic here... HSV isn't a retrovirus. It's a DNA virus that can go latent inside of cells. You might be thinking of HIV, which is a retrovirus.
FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:37 · Score: 0

It's all fine and dandy until someone figures out how to retrovirally use it to infect humans...
Sure the exact genetic code is different. But the basic concept isn't.
Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana. Let's work on retrovirally turning mosquitos into bananas BEFORE
we make them sterile. That way, if humans are wiped out by a genetic accident, at least we were delicious.
1. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  to infect humans
  With male mosquitoes? (Hint: they can't bite).
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
2. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by rogoshen1 · 2015-01-29 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  You must buy into the SJW propaganda on tumblr.
3. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Black+Parrot · 2015-01-29 19:12 · Score: 2
  
  FDA...? Do they consider mosquitos food or drugs?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
4. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Rockoon · 2015-01-29 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  FDA...? Do they consider mosquitos food or drugs?
  Yes.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
5. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by ruir · 2015-01-29 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  The article is not really clear into if the next generation, which have females bread by the male GMO mosquito, will grow enough time to byte humans. And actually some might.
6. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  > to byte humans
  So, bit eight times then?
7. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Holi · 2015-01-30 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  no, these aren't sterile mosquitoes so they will breed and produce offspring. It is just the offspring will die before they breed (hopefully). It is within the realm of possibility that a female will be produced with this genetic defect and live long enough to bite a person, and lo and behold we have Mosquito Man (or woman, don't want to be sexist, but hopefully she is sexy, the women not the mosquito).
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
8. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Holi · 2015-01-30 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  how else do we make super villains?
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
9. Re:FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Jason+Levine · 2015-01-30 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Great. Now we have GMO Cyborg Mosquitoes.
  Thanks, scientists!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Ooh! by Greyfox · 2015-01-29 17:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Dibbs on opening the cage! I'll get to work practicing my mad scientist laugh! "Muahahahahaha! YES! GO FORTH AND FEED, MY CHILDREN!"

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Ooh! by Bob_Who · 2015-01-29 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they called them Mousekateers.
2. Re:Ooh! by swillden · 2015-01-29 17:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Dibbs on opening the cage! I'll get to work practicing my mad scientist laugh! "Muahahahahaha! YES! GO FORTH AND FEED, MY CHILDREN!"
  You should also practice your deflated-sounding "Oh", for when your assistant whispers in your ear that male mosquitoes feed on sap and nectar, not blood.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
3. Re:Ooh! by Greyfox · 2015-01-29 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Damn it, Steve! Fine! Time for plan B! Put up the artist rendition of the sexy anthropomorphized herpes-infected man-whore mosquito! Just in time for the 50 Shades of Grey movie!
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
4. Re:Ooh! by Virtucon · 2015-01-30 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  You've been playing Radiant Defense too much.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Zombie by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:40 · Score: 0

Sounds like the beginning to a grade B zombie movie.
Mosquito bites human.
Unknown side effect occurs in 2% of population bitten.
2% of population turns out to be able to affect the unaffected.
zombie threat materializes.
Good science to do wonderful disease fighting doomed us all.
1. Re:Zombie by jimmetry · 2015-01-29 19:27 · Score: 0
  
  It says that the offspring will die, not that the infected female will die ... so presumably she's free to gather human blood and let the virus genes use her as a petri sack to play sillybuggers in ... splice a few human dna strings and see what happens ... no no, that's crazy talk ... i'm sure playing with our disease transmission vectors won't ever have negative repercussions. These studies were peer. fucking. reviewed.
Does this work on Nigerian Warlords too? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:43 · Score: 0

African tribals who mutilate women and enslave children could use the same treatment.
WASPs by dotslashdot · 2015-01-29 17:44 · Score: 5, Funny

With the mosquitos gone, the WASPs will move in, causing gentrification in the area as the higher prices sting a lot worse.
Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime soon by burtosis · 2015-01-29 17:46 · Score: 1

More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc will undoubtedly be silenced under the noise of "oh my goooooddddd I'm getting gmo material forcefully injected into me by the guberment!!!!!??????1!!" Or "will I be able to get mosquito superpowers if I'm bitten?" I mean of course you wouldn't get superpowers. The Mosquitos aren't radioactive.
Didn't they already do this with screw worm flies? by Dan+B. · 2015-01-29 17:47 · Score: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Just a different insect isn't it?

--
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Remember Jurrasic Park? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 17:51 · Score: 0, Insightful

This is a case of where the benefits are clear, if iffy, and the negatives are unclear, and also iffy. Don't mistake that as a logical reason to pretend any negatives don't or can't exist.
Maybe Douglas Adams was right, mankind's first and biggest mistake was when we came down from the trees.
What could possibly go wrong? by burtosis · 2015-01-29 17:53 · Score: 4, Funny

"scientists at the British biofirm Oxitec have found a way to breed male Aedes aegypti with genetic fragments from E. coli bacteria and herpex simplex virus, along with coral and cabbage." I mean besides gigantic Mosquitos that can reproduce on common food source surfaces with a retro virus capable of infecting and rewriting your DNA with tentacles around a central mouth probuscus having a giant cabbage for a head. Not that females would notice because that's pretty much how males are normally.
Re:Didn't they already do this with screw worm fli by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 18:00 · Score: 1

This is not sterilization. These mosquitos reproduce but their you die quickly.
Re:Didn't they already do this with screw worm fli by garyisabusyguy · 2015-01-29 18:02 · Score: 1

I think that the idea with the screw worm flies was to release so many sterile males that they would breed with the wild females resulting in no young, while this technique will produce young that will die
I suppose that this would have benefits by preventing the female from finding another fertile male to occupy their time

--
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Moridineas · 2015-01-29 18:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc
I've read other articles that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.
Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!
I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!
Given a healthy input of science fiction... by Loki_1929 · 2015-01-29 18:09 · Score: 1

I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
1. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2015-01-29 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but it's the gunshine state, we have trouble keeping people from shooting each other NORMALLY. A zombie apocalypse will never get off the ground here.
  Not that you'd notice much of a difference anyway...
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
2. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by reve_etrange · 2015-01-29 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.
  Why assume? This particular version of the sterile insect technique has already been applied to great success in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
3. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not sterile insects.
  
  The modified males then mate with wild females whose offspring die, reducing the population.
  Sterile insects do not produce offspring.
4. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by Sloppy · 2015-01-29 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Error. You are proceeding from a healthy input of facts. The constraints of the thread are to proceed from a health input of science fiction.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
5. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by robbak · 2015-01-29 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Animals that produce offspring that do not survive to adulthood are regularly called 'sterile' in biology.
  
  --
  Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
6. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by jklovanc · 2015-01-29 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but sterile means "incapable of producing offspring". It has nothing to do with whether or not the offspring reach maturity. If you have a reference that supports your definition I would love to see it.
7. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  First thing I thought was zombie apocalypse when I heard about this on the radio. Then again I don't think it would spread like we think if something like this were to ever happen.
  Well I'll be safe with my non-gmo food until the zombies do come and eat me anyway.
8. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by robbak · 2015-01-30 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Searches for "incapable of producing viable offspring sterile" show many results, and a number of them are straight definitions from biology books. Just one of them is from a book on genetically modified fish
  
  --
  Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
9. Re:Given a healthy input of science fiction... by jklovanc · 2015-01-30 20:33 · Score: 1
  
  Just one of them is from a book on genetically modified fish
  That is the only one that even comes close. Here is the quote from the book.
  
  sterile or genetically modified fish are commonly incapable of producing viable offspring.
  Genetically modified fish produce offspring but they are not viable. Since sterile fish produce no offspring the also produce no viable offspring. That is also not a formal definition.
  Every reference to a formal definition equates sterility to the inability to produce offspring. How about this quote from the Concise Encyclopedia Biology;
  
  Sterility, infertility: the partial or complete inability of an individual to produce functional gametes, and in a wider sense viable zygotes, under existing environmental conditions.
  Since the mosquito offspring pass far beyond the zygote stage this definition does not apply.
  If you can quote a formal definition I might believe you. Inferring from usage is not a formal definition.
Nature by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:15 · Score: 0

Nature finds a way ( -__-) Nobody watched Jurassic Park?
1. Re:Nature by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  Only the idiots among us believe it's remotely plausible
Re:Didn't they already do this with screw worm fli by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:16 · Score: 0

This is not sterilization. These mosquitos reproduce but their you die quickly.
Well if you want to get into semantics the technical term would be "Darwin award participation trophies".
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2015-01-29 18:17 · Score: 2

We've got almost a hundred varieties of the little assholes, this ONE type of mosquito is not a keystone anywhere in the ecosystem.

--
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
it's routine by swell · 2015-01-29 18:17 · Score: 0

I've worked with the Federal & California Dept of Food & Agriculture. This is a standard treatment for certain dangerous pests. We released millions of sterile medflies, for instance. The method has been successful.
So far as I know, this method hasn't yet been used on the most dangerous species- homo sapiens.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...
1. Re:it's routine by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  So far as I know, this method hasn't yet been used on the most dangerous species- homo sapiens.
  Homos don't reproduce
2. Re:it's routine by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't the same as what they did with the medflies, as these are not sterile males -- they are genetically modified so that their offspring die out.
  I don't know why GM mosquitos are better than X-rayed ones, though. Maybe it's somehow more effective.
  dom
3. Re:it's routine by Livius · 2015-01-29 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hominins take decades to reproduce - maybe it's been done and we haven't noticed yet.
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:37 · Score: 0

Life finds a way.
even evolutionary biologists hate mosquitos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 18:58 · Score: 0

stephen j gould, if i recall, hated mosquitos, thought they had no value to the ecosystem (except of course as a food source for birds, which i suspect are not the only food source for them). they are parasites we dont need. so i say, if hes ok with it, wipe em out. at least the ones that are disease vectors.
This is the second best solution. by robbak · 2015-01-29 19:13 · Score: 1

The best solution, and this is in our grasp, is to modify mosquitos so they will produce healthy male mosquitos that carry the modification, and either no female offspring, or sterile female offspring. This will rapidly eliminate a population.
The problem is that you would not be able to contain it - your modified males would spread uncontrollably. Do it worldwide, and we could drive aedes aegypti and the problematic Anopheles species to extinction. The only question left is should we?

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 19:35 · Score: 0

No. Idiotic screenwriters and hacks make up shit that the easily deluded believe.
Problems by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 19:59 · Score: 0

... suppressing 96 percent of the targeted ...

I thought 97% was the minimum kill effectiveness required to reduce insect populations. With 4% of mosquito larvae surviving, they can still spread disease, just much, much slower. Plus, humans then have to deal with mosquitoes carrying a new virus; herpes. What if mosquitoes develop a resistance to the virus and just carry it like they do with many other viruses?
Why not copy other insect control programs and sterilize the males? No larvae means 100% effectiveness.
1. Re:Problems by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Do it for two+ generations.
  And I'm sure this is more effective than sterile males because the young compete for resources with the "normals" before dying off. It's not 100% effective because normal males are still out there breeding with normal females.
  Finally, the mosquitos aren't carrying herpes as a complete virus.
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Neil+Boekend · 2015-01-29 20:02 · Score: 1

The Mosquitos aren't radioactive.
But they are! Ordinary background radiation, mostly caused by the sodium in their blood.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Misleading summary by Okian+Warrior · 2015-01-29 20:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Firstly, the mosquito in question, Aedes aegypti is not native to the Americas. If we destroy them utterly, bats and whatever will go back to eating other mosquitoes.
Secondly, the release of genetically altered mosquitoes has been done before in the Cayman Islands, which reduced the mosquito population by 80%.
Thirdly, this type of modification (where the insects mate but the offspring don't develop) has been done in America before with the screw worm, which infected mostly livestock (and some humans). The screw worm has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, good riddance.
And finally, the headline "FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida" is one-sided and inflammatory. It does not mention "FDA wants to control several types of tropical fevers" or "FDA wants to eliminate a non-native pest that transmits disease".
Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so.
Because, you know, genetic engineering is bad in any form, even if it saves lives and brings the ecology closer to its original state.
1. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 21:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's click-bait. The title of this "article" isn't actually that from the source, /. have deceptively taking a partial sentence from the article to stir up ad impressions. The article itself is quite sane. /. is the problem here, blame them and the so-called editors.
2. Re:Misleading summary by Punko · 2015-01-30 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  I was more or less with you until
  
  "Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so."
  
  Sadly, that is right out of the ends-justify-the-means handbook. Most folks understand the goals, many are uncertain about the process being proposed. There is nothing "wrong" about questioning the method. Yes, folks need to be conscious of fear mongering, but to entirely dismiss concerns because folks aren't focused on the prize is just as wrong as fear mongering.
  
  --
  If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
3. Re:Misleading summary by neurovish · 2015-01-30 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, the mosquito in question, Aedes aegypti is not native to the Americas. If we destroy them utterly, bats and whatever will go back to eating other mosquitoes.
  Secondly, the release of genetically altered mosquitoes has been done before in the Cayman Islands, which reduced the mosquito population by 80%.
  Thirdly, this type of modification (where the insects mate but the offspring don't develop) has been done in America before with the screw worm, which infected mostly livestock (and some humans). The screw worm has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, good riddance.
  And finally, the headline "FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida" is one-sided and inflammatory. It does not mention "FDA wants to control several types of tropical fevers" or "FDA wants to eliminate a non-native pest that transmits disease".
  Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so.
  Because, you know, genetic engineering is bad in any form, even if it saves lives and brings the ecology closer to its original state.
  Too bad you can't be modded +6. Replace those articles with your post and they would be far more effective at informing.
4. Re:Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Can we get rid of fire ants next? They cause billions of dollars in damages every year and kill a few people, and they aren't native to North America.
Food Chain? Environment? by danielzip53 · 2015-01-29 20:05 · Score: 1

What's the flow on effect up the food chain both for the virus and the lack of mosquitoes?
All I can picture are 2 different cases in Australia where scientist thought they knew best...
Introduced Species - Cane Toads
Introduced Virus - myxomatosis - for rabbit control
Both failed miserably.
Good luck Florida!
I'm not a tree hugger by any means, but it seems the scientists never consider the far reach repercussions of this type of exercise, and often they seem to cause more bad than good...
1. Re:Food Chain? Environment? by Harlequin80 · 2015-01-29 20:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
  Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
  Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
2. Re:Food Chain? Environment? by jdschulteis · 2015-01-30 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
  Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
  Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
  Clearly Australian scientists should be working on genetically modifying rabbits so that they will eat cane toads.
3. Re:Food Chain? Environment? by pweidema · 2015-02-01 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Genius!
What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 20:31 · Score: 1

I don't think there has been a case of locally acquired dengue fever in Florida since the "outbreak" of 22 people getting it in 2009.
Also, treatment of dengue fever is to keep calm, drink water and wait for it to pass.
Thank god someone is fighting this scourge here in america where it isn't a problem. We should release the mosquitoes somewhere it's actually a problem, like Puerto Rico.
Won't anyone think of the dengue and chikungunya?! by NoKaOi · 2015-01-29 20:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!
yeah finally action by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 21:12 · Score: 0

To stop millions of blood suckers successfully breeding and that is just the Americans. Oh wait ....
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 21:28 · Score: 0

Yet!
ofcourse.... by SuperDre · 2015-01-29 21:47 · Score: 1

what could go wrong with doing something like that.......................
Heavy Weather had this as a minor plot point by 3.5+stripes · 2015-01-29 22:12 · Score: 1

Governor Huey released GM mosquitoes which were allergic to human blood, which meant after a generation or two, they had adapted to biting everything but humans..

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Kill them all. by Karmashock · 2015-01-29 22:12 · Score: 2

Mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, etc.
Here someone will say "but that will damage the fragile web of life and kill mother gaia" or some other drivel. The biosphere is quite stable and can survive the loss of all these species without crashing the food web.
Look at a remote tropical island that doesn't have any of these species. They exist. And guess what... they're fine. Will something that eats these things likely have a harder time finding food? Sure. But if the species isn't already on the brink of extinction then it will adapt. If it was already on that brink then chances are it was doomed in any case. Adaptive species don't get into positions like that.
And beyond that, species go extinct all the time. Always have. New species fill their niches or existing species simply expand to fill vacant niches which tends to cause them to splinter and create new species.
Here again, someone will say "but the rate of extinction has increased!" Yes it has. The biggest reason is human transport and trade. You let loose a rat from the mainland onto some little island and it is probably going to go sickhouse on the local species that likely haven't had to work as hard to survive on their little island. And yes, that rat or other relevant more vital species is likely to eradicate or out compete its rivals. Evolution at work.
Beyond that, we are also destroying habitats. And that is sad... We should try to limit that sort of damage when and where possible. However, the mosquito can go fuck itself sideways with a rusty chainsaw. I have literally zero sympathy for that species. And I am quite comfortable geo engineering the world to the extent that nightmare species like that simply don't exist. Mother nature has come up with some very impressive things over the eons. But she has also birthed some monsters. And I am quite comfortable aborting those little experiments.
Here again, someone will say "but humans are the biggest monsters"... then kill yourself. Shut up and kill yourself. I have zero patience for that drivel.
Kill all the mosquitoes.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Re:Kill them all. by tehcyder · 2015-01-29 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Look at a remote tropical island that doesn't have any of these species. They exist. And guess what... they're fine.
  On that basis there's no problem with getting rid of elephants, big cats, giraffes, monkeys, parrots, polar bears, blue whales or whatever, as obviously there are places on earth where they don't live.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
2. Re:Kill them all. by Karmashock · 2015-01-30 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  If all you're concerned with is not damaging the biosphere so that life can continue on earth... yep. We could kill all of them and the biosphere would survive.
  Really, all it needs is bacteria, insects that are useful to plants, and plants.
  Here you'll likely point out some unusual situation where mosquitos pollinate or something. That isn't vital. Worms serve a much larger role. Even bees could be done without if you had to... keep in mind that plants were sexually reproducing long before bees or similar insects.
  That said, I'm not talking about killing everything that isn't vital. I am merely pointing out that we can kill them without damaging the food web significantly.
  This notion that the balance of nature is precarious and unstable and always on the brink of collapse is ignorant. Nature is extremely stable. In fact, you'd have to work intentionally to destabilize it and even then it would find a new equilibrium very quickly.
  Every mosquito on earth could die tomorrow... and life would go on with not a lot of disruption. There are some fish that eat a lot of mosquitoes but most of what feeds mosquitoes is not blood. Keep in mind that only the breeding female drinks blood. The larva, males, and females not about to breed do not drink blood. If mosquitoes did not exist then another insect likely already in those rivers, lakes, and marshes would fill the niche absent the blood sucking part. And those insects would feed the fish likely as they already are and have been for ages untold.
  Mosquitoes are not a vital species. They're merely extremely annoying, a massive viral infection vector, and probably one of the largest killers of human beings in the history of ever. Fuck em'.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
3. Re:Kill them all. by nehumanuscrede · 2015-01-30 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Chuckle.
  
  Perhaps the mosquitoes are merely part of a natural equation to keep the human population in check.
  If we had a longer lifespan it's possible we would be in trouble as a species.
  
  Similar to letting deer overpopulate a region. There will be plenty of deer right up to the point where they run out of food and starve to death en masse :D
  Apply that globally to a planet overpopulated with the human animal, and you end up with the same results.
4. Re:Kill them all. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually if you actually do as you suggest and look at some of the islands where they use to spray heavily, the food chain was effected and killed many natural top predators. Lack of top predators allowed the rat populations to explode and soon you had lots of other rat related diseases being spread.
5. Re:Kill them all. by dunkelfalke · 2015-01-30 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Buddy, and why exactly don't you kill yourself? From what I have seen so far you are a waste of breath and nobody would be worse off if you just cease to exist. Just do it and nothing will ever test your patience again.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
6. Re:Kill them all. by Karmashock · 2015-01-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because I value my own life and will do what I must to survive
  As to the basis of your opinion... you've offered no reason for saying I should kill myself. It is logically impossible to argue against a position that is not defined appropriately.
  Is that because you're too lazy to explain yourself or because you're an intellectual coward that is afraid that if he puts out reasons they'll be hammered flat with superior reasoning?
  It is one of the two.
  Until you define your position, it is of no value.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
7. Re:Kill them all. by Karmashock · 2015-01-30 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  That is pure supposition. You have no causal link anywhere in that. The mere presence of foreign species to the island could do all of that all on its own.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
8. Re:Kill them all. by Karmashock · 2015-01-30 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nature doesn't work that way. You're presupposing some consciousness in nature and that sort of gaia nonsense has no basis in evidence.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 22:28 · Score: 0

can possibley go wrong.
Guantanamo next? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 22:51 · Score: 0

And the same technique will be used on all prisoners released from Guantanamo as well...
FDA APPROVAL MEANS ITS SAFE by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-29 22:53 · Score: 0

I'm already delicious! At least my pet wolf looks like he thinks so.
Stable equalibria are also vulnerable by Viol8 · 2015-01-29 23:05 · Score: 2

If you don't believe me remove one of the legs of your chair and see how long you can remain upright while sitting on it. Now you sprawled on the floor is also a stable equlibria but I doubt its where you want to be - and similarly a fucked up ecosystem that is "stable" with a highly reduced number of species isn't necessaily a good place to be be for this planets enviroment or frankly us.
I guess the FDA hates birds by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 00:16 · Score: 0

Dear FDA, Please consider the ecological side-affects. With mosquito repellent & decent medical care most humans can survive mosquito born illness, but birds and other bug-eaters will starve.
1. Re:I guess the FDA hates birds by aviators99 · 2015-01-30 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Dear FDA, Please consider the ecological side-affects. With mosquito repellent & decent medical care most humans can survive mosquito born illness, but birds and other bug-eaters will starve.
  You left out mosquito repellent manufacturers and decent medical care providers.
2. Re:I guess the FDA hates birds by aviators99 · 2015-01-30 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  There was a RadioLab podcast on this very subject about ten months ago: http://www.radiolab.org/story/...
  The prevailing wisdom seems to be that the ecosystem will not take a huge hit. I believe the quote was something like, "It will just be like Los Angeles is all the time". The best they could come up with was that it could allow some better predators to thrive, but they seemed pretty unsure.
  However, I do agree that people tend to underestimate these sorts of impacts. More ethanol use == more dying people in Africa, for example. At least someone figured out before Bill Gates implemented his idea of using barges to steer hurricanes away from the SE and Caribbean that it would have apparently caused famine in the UK...
Re:Won't anyone think of the dengue and chikunguny by CrimsonAvenger · 2015-01-30 00:54 · Score: 1

The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction,
**sighs**
Measles has never been on the brink of extinction. It's still endemic in much of the Third World.
Note that the latest US outbreak is about one percent of the normal number of annual cases in the UK alone.
And it's not like CA isn't well above the 90% immunized rate that's considered "fully immunized"....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm tired by cadeon · 2015-01-30 00:59 · Score: 1

I'm tired of these mfin mosquitos made out of mfin viruses!
we already do this with medfly by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 01:31 · Score: 0

The mediterrainian fruit flies we release are sterile males that mate with females who only mate once in life. They are genetically sterile and released by the millions.
More probably, I think this will lead to... by mark-t · 2015-01-30 02:01 · Score: 1

... acellerated evolution
And we will end up with super-mosquitos that are even more resistant to anything we try to throw at them.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Inspired by fear by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:12 · Score: 0

It's a plan inspired by fear, not backed by far-reaching knowledge of the consequences. I doubt that even releasing millions of these mosquitoes will even do anything to the mosquito population, really. If any carriers survive (and...they probably will) - the carriers will soon repopulate. The plan seems like a temporary kill-off at best.
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Jason+Levine · 2015-01-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Life in general finds a way, but that doesn't mean that specific species find a way. If it did then T-Rexes would be walking around today. Instead, we have birds which evolved from dinosaurs.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
But What Will by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 02:21 · Score: 0

there be for the birds to eat?
WTF, Why aren't we doing this already? by Virtucon · 2015-01-30 02:28 · Score: 1

Mosquitoes and the diseases they carry kill over one million people a year. Why the fuck aren't we doing this more to get rid of all Mosquitoes or at least greatly reduce their numbers?

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Jurassic Park by Trihalo42 · 2015-01-30 02:34 · Score: 1

Dr. Ian Malcolm: "John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is."
Long Time Floridian by JimSadler · 2015-01-30 03:00 · Score: 1

Many people are not aware of how bad mosquitoes can get in a tropical climate. Even in areas west of Miami we sometimes see cattle whose air ways are so obstructed with mosquitoes that they die from lack of air. In the keys, during major bug outbreaks it is insane. As a teen we would sometimes lock a guy out of the car and watch him beg and break into tears as he was bitten hundreds of times in a single minute or two. The Everglades and river of grass supply skeeters into the keys when the wind is wrong and on top of that they have salt water mosquitoes that breed in the waters surrounding the keys and it turns into a nightmare situation. It is not constant but during a skeeter invasion it is over the top. We do have some Malaria along with the lesser diseases here and knocking down skeeters without poisoning or starving birds is a challenege.
Don't miss the TED talk on this tech by Tchaik · 2015-01-30 03:03 · Score: 1

I realize that the tradition is to no even RTFA, but there's a great TED talk on this technology.
Wouldn't it be funny by gatkinso · 2015-01-30 03:05 · Score: 1

FTA: Enter Oxitec, a British biotech firm that patented a method of breeding Aedes aegypti with fragments of genes from the herpes simplex virus and E. coli bacteria as well as coral and cabbage.
If a fucking mosquito bit you and you get herpes along with a massive case of gas?

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 03:20 · Score: 0

I agree with everything you said except ticks. We need to go after the bedbugs first who have 1) No ecological purpose other than peristatism of humans 2) Are a difficult and costly problem for humans.
Wow, just wow by s.petry · 2015-01-30 03:22 · Score: 1

Go read up on how many other species rely on the Mosquito for survival. Larvae is a source of food for fish, countless other insects eat adults. They all have a place in the food chain and extinction would be devastating.
As with killer bees, yes things can go seriously wrong when trying to 'help' nature do it's job.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
introduced species...OH NO!!! by slackoon · 2015-01-30 05:37 · Score: 1

The Cane Toad was also a "good idea" with a "proven background" and...well...we all know how that went

"The cane toad is native to South and Central America, but when its introduction to regions of Hawaii, the Caribbean, and the Philippines to fight pests in sugarcane fields yielded impressive results, it was quickly imported to various other regions worldwide.

Unfortunately, cane toads have a nasty habit of not just eating crop pests and insects, but also just about any terrestrial animal that they can fit their grotesquely huge mouths around — which is saying something, given that they can grow to over 30 cm in length. They also secrete toxins capable of killing just about any animal they come in contact with (humans have died after ingesting their eggs), meaning that they tend to be seriously lacking in the natural predator department."
Source here
where did this tripe come from? by publiclurker · 2015-01-30 05:47 · Score: 1

It looks like someone ran Ayn Rand through Google translate a few times and then vomited on the result.
FDA says... by Yakasha · 2015-01-30 06:35 · Score: 1

Marijuana is addictive, has a high potential for abuse, and has no known medical uses.
They claim the same for other drugs that have been used, very successfully, by the medical community.
So, why should I believe these mosquitoes are harmless?
1. Re:FDA says... by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-30 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  A better question is not if these mosquitoes are harmless, it's if having no mosquitoes is harmful.
  
  Many insect species are responsible for unexpected things.
  
  --
  I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Not Eradicated by jsrjsr · 2015-01-30 07:12 · Score: 1

According to the University of Florida it's malaria that has been eradicated, not the Anopheles mosquito.
I wonder by g0bshiTe · 2015-01-30 07:15 · Score: 1

What kind of unforeseen disastrous effect not having mosquitoes would or could cause?

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
so we have a 1 generation solution by MarkH · 2015-01-30 07:37 · Score: 1

Consequence of evolution is genes in organisms which fail to breed mean others that adapt to change will produce the next generation. Am I missing something?
Florescent too! by steamraven · 2015-01-30 08:37 · Score: 1

According to their website, the mosquitoes are also florescent!
http://www.oxitec.com/oxitec-v...
Even the article spins it negatively by DeathByLlama · 2015-01-30 10:08 · Score: 1

They start off by saying that it's "the females that bite and spread illness," and that they'll be releasing only male mosquitoes. Then they take the concession that there's no guarantee that "**only** non-biting males will be released," and spin this into saying that folks will have "millions of flying, biting GMOs in their neighborhoods." Come on, now.
Most important to consider by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-30 20:13 · Score: 0

But are they gluten-free?
Goodbye Humanity ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-31 06:59 · Score: 0

This is 'end of the world ' stuff.
If you change the genetic make-up of a living entity to suit mans habitat then you change the life balance of nature ,,, the effects of which will grow and become prominent over time.
Like a unbelievable '60's movie by Anonymous Coward · 2015-01-31 16:18 · Score: 0

What could possibly go wrong?
And it cuts the food supply for other animals by MoarSauce123 · 2015-02-01 00:58 · Score: 1

Mosquitoes are annoying to humans, but they are dinner for a number of other animals. Killing off almost all mosquitoes will impact other wildlife.