Sex-Switched Mosquitoes May Help In Fight Against Diseases

cstacy writes: Only the female mosquitoes bite and transmit viral diseases such as Dengue Fever. Scientists have finally discovered the elusive genetic switch called Nix, that determines the sex of these blood sucking insects, and hope to selectively eliminate females to control the spread of diseases. "Nix provides us with exciting opportunities to harness mosquito sex in the fight against infectious diseases because maleness is the ultimate disease-refractory trait," explained Zhijian Jake Tu, an affiliate of the Fralin Life Science Institute and a biochemistry professor from Virginia Tech's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Comments

Why not just kill them all?

[joetomato]

Am I mistaken, or if you switch off the ability for them to be female, after a single generation, they'll be extinct anyway. So why not just kill them all and be done with it?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Same reason some people don't think we should kill all snakes, sharks, humans, crocodiles, tigers, ..

But sure. Kill all humans. Be done with it. Nothing to fear for us or anyone else from humans.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Mosquitoes don't fill any ecological niche that couldn't be filled by a host of other species.

Some bugs just need to die.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Kuroji]

I seem to recall reading a few articles in the last year where it's been determined that, while mosquitoes have a relatively large percent of the planet's biomass, removing them would have very little consequence; the things that eat them don't eat them primarily.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[BarbaraHudson]

Kind of hard to kill them all ... but if you get them to switch from female to male, those mosquitoes won't feed and transmit diseases, and they can't lay eggs.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[ArcadeMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[pubwvj]

"Not a good plan usually."

"Usually" is a very important qualifier there. There are some things we do not need, some things the ecosystem does not need, some things that can be removed without disrupting the greater cycle of life. Some of those things are just annoying. Yes, there are things that eat them but not that are dependent on them. Eliminating them eliminates an annoyance. Take the Polio virus for example. Please.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[meerling]

Yes, because you will unable to be able to get them all, so there will still be a breeding population, but hopefully much smaller and mostly consisting of non-infectious males.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[meerling]

Wow I really messed up the grammar in that one. :P

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[NotInHere]

So, that fraction of the species will die off, and the goal wasn't reached. What we should do instead is following: produce female mosquitoes who are pre-filled with blood (e.g. by giving them blood from ), and with a genetic switch so that their offsprings are only male, and release them every year into the wild. Now they will lay their eggs into the water, and will compete with the "normal" mosquitoes, reducing the overall number of female mosquitoes, because the mosquitoes in the eggs are only males. Now as the released mosquitoes lay their eggs themselves, they catch every spot the "normal" females would get, removing the need to deploy any poison to all possible locations. By keeping the release rates up every season, the modified fraction won't die off.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[NotInHere]

This should have been:

(e.g. by giving them blood from animals)

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Can't that be said for everything?

Tigers doesn't either. Humans can eat their pray?

Small snakes can be replaced with .. owls?

And so on.

So why bother.

Same could be said about Christians, Muslims, Americans, French people, vacuum cleaner sellers, McD personal, .. too. Just kill them and let other humans replace them. Why not?

Guess it doesn't matter that all the extinct animals died because obviously the world carries on anyway.

Just destroy everything. WTF. Something else will replace it eventually. And really our existance is pretty useless anyway and the Earth will be destroyed and all life on it eventually anyway so why bother?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Grishnakh]

Mosquitoes are parasites. They don't polinate anything. They just fly around and suck blood from hapless victims, human and animal. No one is going to miss them when they're gone, just like no one will miss roundworms.

Yes, for other insects, you're right: they may occupy an important part in the ecological chain. I've never seen any evidence that mosquitoes have any value at all.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Billly Gates]

Go visit Alaska some time or some other boreal place and your opinion will change VERY rapidly!

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Billly Gates]

Arctic mosquitos do. In places too cold for most bees or tundra where there are no trees for a hive arctic mosquitos pollinate and drive you batshit insane at the same time.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Whiteox]

So we get a bunch of gay mosquitos?
I did hear once that the female's buzz is there to attract males who don't buzz. Unfortunately the males are deaf.
On a more serious note, the egg, larva and pupa are eaten by fish, frogs, birds, spiders so their absence will be significant. Using genetic switches would only be local and thus effecting the local populations only.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[narf0708]

While I agree with the conclusion, I do beleive you arrived at it a bit incorrectly. It's that mosquitoes don't fill any useful ecological niche. Their sole purpose in the environment is to make things suffer, and they don't have any positive contributions which even come close to evening that out. This is a rare thing that should enable us to slaughter them in massive quantities to the point of extinction without any noticeable effect on the environment except that more people will be willing to go on nature walks.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Oh there was that too.

Regarding mosquitos and killing them locally.

I'm vegan and kinda possibly want to be somewhat consistent there. So that's what make me question whatever to kill them or not. If I killed them I could at least put them to got use by sprinkling them on the lake and hope some fishes took them.

Then I would interfere but their death wouldn't be for nothing at least (likely wouldn't regardless of what I did with them.)

I think killing them of completely is much worse though because evolution takes time and you remove their branch from existance and decrease variety forever.

If you slaughter cows at least other cows will replace them so the whole species isn't loss. But to kill a whole specie(?) is fucking gross.

I have a so-so feeling about hunting to "preserve" wild life too. If that's the solution that's better than nothing. But I wish they wasn't breeded to bring less wild and less competitive versions of the animals just to get better trophies (you could of course argue that's what make them more competitive then but ..), I want them to have the best chances to live out in the wild so that eventually they could be released and survive again some time in the future. To not ruin them.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[mark-t]

Can't that be said for everything?

Bees.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[penguinoid]

Am I mistaken, or if you switch off the ability for them to be female, after a single generation, they'll be extinct anyway. So why not just kill them all and be done with it?

It's less toxic to us and the environment, to use genetics rather than pesticide. It's also potentially more reliable, and potentially cheaper, and extremely targeted. If it's heritable, then your pest control can increase in numbers so you need much less. And males can find females at quite a range.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Can't that be said for everything?

No it can't, you illiterate dickhead relativist. Mosquitoes are genuinely useless.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Livius]

Eradicating mosquitoes would undoubtedly have some unforeseen negative ecological dislocations.

But we're talking about mosquitoes; I'm willing to take the risk.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Bees.

Only if you assume the loss of something is worth anything.

Various bees polinate various flowers and trees but remove one and even if some flowers and tress wouldn't be polinated others would take advantage of the loss.

But I guess it's correct in the way if finite consequences for others. Maybe no species depend on mosquitos only. What about the diseases they spread? But I guess that's what one usually want to stop anyway.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[AK Marc]

No. The pressure on deer is different when the wolves are exterminated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The deer population saw a higher equilibrium, because the human pressures were different. Wolves did a good job of iproving the deer breeding stock. Sick and weak are selectively targeted, when human hunters will deliberately not choose the sick and weak.

So yes, there are differences, and sometimes they end up larger changes that people assume. Wolves move rivers. The bears and humans and such that filled the niche didn't have the same effect.

But mosquitos have no benefits. Kill them all, and I'll not get bit again. And we'll stop malaria and other diseases.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[kesuki]

bats feed on mosquitoes bats live in caves where they poop bat poop makes classic black powder. what will we kill the zombies with when we need to make our own gunpowder and bullets (assuming that the factories that produce smokeless powder are not resurrected and the chemicals for smokeless powder are not available)

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[mark-t]

How can others "take advantage of the loss" when they wouldn't be polinated either?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Grishnakh]

Bats eat mosquitoes, but they eat a lot of other bugs too. I doubt they'll miss the mosquitoes much, and other bugs will fill in that food source.

And you better hope you don't have to go back to black powder; that stuff sucks. Not only does it make a lot of smoke, it fouls up guns very quickly, so you have to constantly clean them (much more than with modern guns). It also has poor ballistic performance. Aside from that, there's more to cartridges than powder and bullets: you also need a primer. Reloaders today save money by loading their own cartridges, since the powder is cheap in bulk and lead is easy to cast (or you can buy those premade if you want), and it's easy with some simple hand tools to put this stuff into brass shells and press them together, but I've never heard of anyone making their own primers; they have to buy those pre-made.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Anonymous Coward]

think of the ecological structure as a pyramid pull enough crap from the bottom and the whole thing collapses. Mosquitoes make up a significant portion of the diet of other insects and birds. By removing the mosquitoes you put pressure on other insects that now become food targets who may or may not be as hardy at the breading cycle as mosquitoes. So now we inadvertently destroy another and then another species due to over predation. How long till the pyramid collapses? I think that your powers of observation and logic are in abeyance.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[mark-t]

Perhaps... but there's no scientific credulity to such a notion... and as this whole matter is more than just somewhat linked to science, your post in that context comes off as a sounding like you are either a lunatic or a troll or both.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[BarbaraHudson]

The goal is not to kill off all mosquitoes. Not only is it impossible, but we don't know what some of the side effects will be. We do know that mosquito larvae are a food source for many fish at an early stage of their life cycle, and the fish help keep the mosquito population somewhat under control. Take away all the larvae, you may have fewer fish reaching adulthood.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[BarbaraHudson]

No - they develop as males. Males don't bite. So, they can't transmit disease. I don't think this is really a viable solution, though. Say we manage to find a chemical or bio-chemical agent to do the job. Do we really want to introduce it into the environment? The effects would probably be worse than DDT.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[itsenrique]

If someones excuse for not going on a "nature walk", or even a real damn hiking or camping trip, is mosquitoes, getting rid of the mosquitoes will probably not help. That's just a polite excuse, some people just don't like "sitting in the dirt" as it's been explained to me.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't that be said for everything?

No it can't, you illiterate dickhead relativist. Mosquitoes are genuinely useless.

Bats love mosquitoes.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[KGIII]

It turns out that DDT was not that bad and is actually legal again for limited use. The whole thing about DDT and bird eggs was based on shoddy data. No, I am not kidding. See Wikipedia if you are curious. I did not believe it at first myself so I was curious.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Bing Tsher E]

The effects would probably be worse than DDT.

It wouldn't be difficult for the effect to be worse than DDT.

DDT was a problem mainly because it came out in the moronic era when any new 'miracle chemical' that came out was spread as widely as possible. It was dispersed so widely that it became a real problem. Selective and very controlled use of DDT is effective for controlling mosquito problems. It's simply a boogeyman thing, like 'nukes' for a lot of people.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[ShanghaiBill]

Eradicating mosquitoes would undoubtedly have some unforeseen negative ecological dislocations.

We don't need to eradicate all mosquitoes. Just the anopheles mosquitoes that transmit malaria. There are plenty of other mosquito species that would be happy to fill their niche.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Smallpond]

While I agree with the conclusion, I do beleive you arrived at it a bit incorrectly. It's that mosquitoes don't fill any useful ecological niche.

Not true. Malaria parasites and yellow fever virus would both be quite upset if mosquitoes were extinct.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[BarbaraHudson]

I know. But what can you do ... it's like the anti-nuclear-power gang. If they weren't so .... you know ... we'd have already done the research to fund real nuclear waste recycling instead of just stockpiling it.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Rinikusu]

There's a huge number of small fish that love eating mosquito larvae, with a large number of fish (and birds, frogs, snakes, etc) that eat those small fish, etc, and even larger animals that eat those fish...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Ian A. Shill]

Dear sir or madam, and those who think like you,

Do you really think you are smarter than reality?

While I agree with the conclusion, I do beleive you arrived at it a bit incorrectly. It's that mosquitoes don't fill any useful ecological niche. Their sole purpose in the environment is to make things suffer, and they don't have any positive contributions which even come close to evening that out. This is a rare thing that should enable us to slaughter them in massive quantities to the point of extinction without any noticeable effect on the environment except that more people will be willing to go on nature walks.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Sardaukar86]

I know. But what can you do ... it's like the anti-nuclear-power gang. If they weren't so .... you know ... we'd have already done the research to fund real nuclear waste recycling instead of just stockpiling it.

It brings a tear to my eye when I think of what the 'green' lobby has done to stifle environmental progress. It does seem that they're actually more than happy with the building and operation of coal plants after all.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Ian A. Shill]

first they came for the annoying things...

I have an extensive list.

"Not a good plan usually."

"Usually" is a very important qualifier there. There are some things we do not need, some things the ecosystem does not need, some things that can be removed without disrupting the greater cycle of life. Some of those things are just annoying. Yes, there are things that eat them but not that are dependent on them. Eliminating them eliminates an annoyance. Take the Polio virus for example. Please.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Mosquitoes are genuinely useless.

I'm sure the world feels the same about you too.

On a subjective scale from all the species of the planet if they where well-informed enough I think we'd be considered the worst for lots of them.
Not rats and possibly dogs =P

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Ok all your guys.
I'll give you one chance:

But mosquitos have no benefits.

[citation needed]

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

There's not just one kind of bees and they don't all pollinate the same stuff.

You mean all bees / all pollinators? Good day for those who don't need them I guess ..

Re: Why not just kill them all?

[brianerst]

Actually, Nature asked a bunch of ecologists that very question and the response was, basically, kill them all.

But we don't need to go that far. Of the 3,500 species of mosquito, only 40 spread human disease. Eradicate every single one of those and you still have 3,460 species of mosquito to fill every conceivable mosquito niche. If I remember correctly, there's another 30 or so species that target important domesticated species (dogs, cows, horses, etc), so wiping those out would be a nice phase 2.

Human-vectoring mosquitoes cause enormous human suffering for vanishingly little environmental utility. Getting rid of them would be a big win for the environment - as long as they are around, we will be forced to use pesticides that have real negative environmental consequences.

Re: Why not just kill them all?

[brianerst]

Slash dot ate the Nature link. It's here: http://www.nature.com/news/201...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Hognoxious]

I'm vegan

It's a shame mosquitoes aren't.

I seem to be foie gras & filet mignon to them. My wife never gets bitten.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[AK Marc]

You are the one asserting there is some benefit from them. What benefit? You have one chance.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Hognoxious]

A Brown Bess doesn't use primers.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Hognoxious]

Do we know that with 100% certainty? If not it makes sense to hedge the bet a little.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Mosquitoes don't fill any ecological niche that couldn't be filled by a host of other species.

That is true of almost any species. Such as humans, for example.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[weilawei]

My anecdotal experience is that mosquitoes don't seem to "like me", but that's because I absolutely hate flying insects and am aggressive about dealing with any that come near me. I rarely get bitten.

I have friends who complain of being eaten by mosquitoes in the exact same conditions, but they're not busy swatting them off when they bite.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[michelcolman]

Exactly, and bats are extremely useful animals because they kill lots of mosquitoes. Oh, wait...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[michelcolman]

The problem is that, apparently, only two thirds of the females became male. If you would apply this method to a huge number of mosquitoes, there would be a temporary reduction in numbers followed by an explosion of mosquitoes that don't react to NIX. A single mosquito can lay quite a lot of eggs, so the numbers would be up to the old value again in a few generations. The number of mosquitoes is determined more by the environment than by the number of parent mosquitoes.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[mrlinux11]

Except they do provide themselves as a food source for many other species, so by wiping them out you are eliminating a food source.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[weilawei]

Pretty sure that cats still need servants too.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[weilawei]

Yep. I've come to realize that when you say, "camping", most people immediately think of an RV stuffed with every gadget imaginable cranked up to 11.

Screw that. I like my hammock, tarp, and wool blankets. It's not for everyone, though. If you don't actually like being outside, then not much is going to change that. RVs are just a way for people to claim that they're "camping" and have a few beers in a different pub than usual.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[KGIII]

I have been reading and learning about a thorium reactor. It seems to be a brilliant idea, unfortunately there are many who do not realize that all radiation is not equal. Then they go out in the natural sun and have a long picnic...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Paradise Pete]

Is your wife a vegetable?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Muad'Dave]

Don't forget that honeybees are an introduced species in North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[cusco]

So are apples and cherries. For that matter wheat, cows and potatoes are as well.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[cusco]

Mosquito larvae are an important part of the ecosystem of non-circulating water deposits, eating bacteria and protozoa and providing food for dragonfly nymphs and other predators. There is no real replacement for them, and you can't have larvae without adults.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

Yep, but if you can rig things so most females only produce males, you can radically shrink the population. And that would be good enough for a start. Worry about eliminating pocket populations later.

As to their ecological niche, I've noticed that when there are a lot of crane flies, there are few or no mosquitoes, and v.v. I take this to mean they can more or less substitute. Crane flies are harmless, and just as edible for mosquito predators.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

I suspect the niche will be filled by crane flies, which are both edible and harmless. That's what I've observed in the wild already -- one has a population that is predominantly mosquitoes, or predominantly crane flies, without appearing to change much else. Sure, the balance may change at some levels, but wholesale collapse? Not unless something is so narrowly adapted that it feeds ONLY on mosquitoes. Doubtless there are some specialty parasite that would suffer, or have to adapt to a new host. I can't think of any mosquito predators that are so limited.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

Actually roundworms, at least in dogs, are a symbiote, not a parasite. Recent research found that they serve to stimulate development of the puppy's immune system. It's possible to produce puppies that never experience roundworms, but they are very prone to neonatal diarrhea and pre-weaning unthriftiness, which is a lot more of a problem for the puppy.

As I point out above, it's probable that the ecological niche will be filled by crane flies, and probably gnats and other small pests, but that's a pretty good trade for being rid of mosquitoes.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Grishnakh]

OK, how about tapeworms? Is there any value to those?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

Not that I know of. No loss to the world if they went away. Tho I wonder how it would affect the flea population that's their primary vector?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Grishnakh]

I wonder if there'd be any problems if fleas went away too.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

Fleas, ticks, chiggers, hookworms, whipworms, horseflies, deerflies, doubtless others (especially the wide array of parasites found in Africa and Australia) ... can't think of any downside, other than possibly to their own parasites. Oh well!

I read somewhere that anemia due to the arctic's twin-engine mosquitoes is the leading cause of death in caribou.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Grishnakh]

Hmm... so maybe eliminating a bunch of these parasites would actually help out a lot of other animals populations, including various endangered species (ones which we actually care about, like various mammals and birds)?

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[Reziac]

I had the same thought -- what would that do to relieve stress on the host populations? Some might expand to where they're better off if we harvest more of 'em.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[itsenrique]

But I have. I am a Florida native and have camped in swamps, and near the coast where no-see-ums will eat you alive. I have flying insects out of state as well. I wear a head-net over a hat and long everything (including sun gloves). Or sometimes I just slather myself with DEET. Yeah, sometimes the bugs still get you. But unless your bites turn into welts that scar I just don't see what the big deal is. Put some steroid cream on it later to stop the itching, or just deal with it. It's hot, it's cold, there's bugs, the food is not as good. I mean, these are the breaks.

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Ok. I go with the one I know / could think of first hand:
http://www.mosquitoreviews.com...

I guess another obvious one is as bird feed. Another less obvious one as wasp feed.
http://www.wbrcouncil.org/Depa...
http://www.motherearthnews.com...

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[aliquis]

Oh well.

Guess some humans consider their value as dangerous, powerful, exotic and amazing species so high they are worth to keep around even though they are dangerous to us =P

Being unique and diversification is also values :)

Oh well. I'd rather get rid of lots of humans ;D

Re:Why not just kill them all?

[jaklode]

If the bite is fresh: put it in hot water for some minutes, rub ginger on it, and it's gone after a few minutes. The heat neutralises enzyms that cause the itching while the ginger has anti-inflammatory properties.

China already selectively eliminates females

[turkeydance]

the human kind

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[ArcadeMan]

Can we please get a "Dark humour" mod for times like these?

Also, "Sad truth" would be helpful in some cases.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

the human kind

SEX RATIO (MALE(S)/FEMALE) - at birth:
India: 1.12
China: 1.11
World: 1.07
E.U.: 1.06
U.S.A.: 1.05
source: CIA.

While there are more male than female births in India and China, the difference from the World's average is not so big as many people may thing (note for the "/." SJW's : i don't support killing females... o.k?!)

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[Nutria]

the difference from the World's average is not so big as many people may thin(k)

I'm sure it's not for trying!!

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

the difference from the World's average is not so big as many people may thin(k)

I'm sure it's not for trying!!

I like (grammar) NaZi's, and genocides (of orthographic mistakes) - thanks!

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[Nutria]

Hey, I didn't say anything -- much less anything nasty -- about that small mistake...

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Hey dude, I REALLY* LIKE (grammar) NaZi's, AND GENOCIDES (of orthographic mistakes) - and it was not a "small mistake", but a fucking HUGE (thing - think), so i REALLY* THANK YOU!

* if you read my signature you will understand that i struggle with my English because i am not a native speaker - i think (do you see what YOU did?) most native speakers appreciate corrections.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[Gavagai80]

Since India + China are half the world's population, they tend to be around the world average on things. Remove them and the rest of the world's average would probably be ~1.05.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Since India + China are half the world's population, they tend to be around the world average on things. Remove them and the rest of the world's average would probably be ~1.05.

That is a good point (i am too tired to do the math now!), but that's why i also posted EU and USA ratios (less suspect for female genocide), so... even from the 1.06 and 1.05 ratio, both India and China are not so far with their 1.12 and 1.11.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[R3d M3rcury]

Of course, when you're talking half the world's population, a few hundredths of a percentage point can make a really big difference in actual numbers...

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[KGIII]

A wise person once pointed out, to me, that a mine that spends three million dollars on electricity is actually rightly interested in anything that provides even a one percent increase in efficiency. I think that is applicable here. The percentage may be similar but the overall number is vastly different.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[ShanghaiBill]

SEX RATIO (MALE(S)/FEMALE) - at birth:
India: 1.12
China: 1.11

I am skeptical about these figures. Many people have an interest in covering up this problem. In China, there is also a lot of cover up in the other direction, from parents that had a daughter, and didn't report the birth, so they could later have a son as their "one child". Often times these girls are raised in the countryside by their grandparents, and kept out of school, so the government doesn't know about them.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

What you write is wise but i compare "genocide" rates like Hitler/Stalin would have done - and i think that way is the only right way to examine India's/China's "genocide of females".

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

SEX RATIO (MALE(S)/FEMALE) - at birth: India: 1.12 China: 1.11

I am skeptical about these figures. Many people have an interest in covering up this problem. In China, there is also a lot of cover up in the other direction, from parents that had a daughter, and didn't report the birth, so they could later have a son as their "one child". Often times these girls are raised in the countryside by their grandparents, and kept out of school, so the government doesn't know about them.

I am also skeptical, and even those (not so high) numbers i suspect to be exaggerated for the reasons you mention - it is the usual problem with demographic/social/economic/etc statistics: you need a local person to explain why they are wrong!

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Yes, but when we compare rates between countries and/or the world's average the "actual numbers" MUST BE irrelevant - we discuss "genocides" here, so "even one murdered is too much" sensitivities are... unimportant.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[Sardaukar86]

He probably assumed it was a typo and didn't want to upset you by writing (sic) when quoting your post, no need to invoke genocide or nazis.

Unless you want to, of course.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

He probably assumed it was a typo and didn't want to upset you by writing (sic) when quoting your post, no need to invoke genocide or nazis.

Unless you want to, of course.

Well, i want! And if you read the title that exists on your comment you may understand why... you can say i have a bad taste of humor, or that invoking genocides is appropriate enough.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[StikyPad]

It's probably safe to assume that the CIA doesn't have an interest in furthering China's political agenda.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[Moses48]

I'm not sure these assumptions are correct, but saying that 1.07 to 1.12 is "not as big as many people may think" is a bit disingenuous. Let's look at the numbers

Lets assume 1.07 would be their natural ratio. In India it's 1.12. India has a birth rate of around 25 million people a year. The "natural" ratio would lead that to be:

25m * 1.07/2.07
12,922,705 males
12,077,294 females

Their actual ratio is more like (1.12):

25m * 1.12/2.12
13,207,547 males
11,792,452 females

Female birth number should be assuming a 1.07 ratio = 13,207,547 / 1.07 = 12,343,502
If this imbalance was only due to deaths of females before being reported as births this would lead to 551,050 females being killed in India.

We're talking half a million female babies each year (just in India). That's probably more than most people think.

Re:China already selectively eliminates females

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Just to make it clear, since i was the one posted the ratios and stated "not as big as many people may think" (i don't want you to think i approve "genocides"): i compare rates (between countries), so the actual numbers (of female babies) are irrelevant - the actual female babies are important. but...

Sure...

[zieroh]

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Sure...

[swillden]

What could possibly go wrong?

Normally, the implication of that question is that there are a bunch of blindingly obvious problems which are being blithely overlooked.

So, what are they?

The church won't like that!

[ArcadeMan]

Scientists, making gay mosquitoes on purpose?

Re:The church won't like that!

[Bing Tsher E]

They're not Gay. They're one of the other letters in that GBLTQ dealie.

Re:Jurassic Park

[ArcadeMan]

He's not your guy, buddy.

I thought Nix was only for lice!?

[EzInKy]

Anyway, sex switching is the future. There is no reason anyone should be stuck with a sex arbitrarily chosen by nature. Everyone should be able to pick and choose whatever is best for them at any given moment in their life. Thankfully at least the Irish people have the insight to understand this.

Re:I thought Nix was only for lice!?

[Grishnakh]

There is no reason anyone should be stuck with a sex arbitrarily chosen by nature. Everyone should be able to pick and choose whatever is best for them at any given moment in their life.

Um, there's a very good reason people should be, and are, stuck with the sex arbitrarily chosen for them by nature: we simply don't have the technology to change it. No, cosmetic surgery doesn't count, it's just a poor attempt at making someone appear to be the opposite sex. To actually change someone's sex, you'd have to figure out how to actually change their genes in all their cells, and then change their physical characteristics too. Maybe in the future we'll figure out how to do that with all this stem-cell research, and that would indeed be very cool, but not now. Until you can actually change someone enough that they can actually reproduce as a member of the opposite sex, and also exist as a member of that sex without needing hormone therapy, then it isn't real, it's just a facsimile.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to take advantage of current transsexual medical technology and techniques, and I do wish the situation were better for their sake, but let's not fool ourselves as to how effective it really is. It's a very, very rare transsexual who doesn't look like someone who got GRS, rather than just a normal member of that sex (and the ones who really do "pass" always seem to be Asian for some reason). You can mess around with hormones, reconstructive genital surgery, even facial surgery (to make the face look more masculine or feminine), but you still can't do stuff like change the shoulder-to-waist ratio, hand and foot sizes, etc. And this is also neglecting many other things, such as that men's and women's brains have different structures.

The new all-male mosquito population...

[SailorSpork]

...shall be called Brosquitoes.

Re:The new all-male mosquito population...

[cardpuncher]

Bro' / 'mo - not sure there's much difference in these metrosexual times...

reminds me of the screw fly solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a sci fi story published in Analog magazine way back in 1977. Amazing the stuff I keep stored in this brain. Anyway, look it up. It was quite amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwfly_Solution

I'm convinced...

[CODiNE]

I used to disagree with the philosophy of the laser zapping mosquito killer...

The information gathered by the non-lethal laser can be used to determine the type of insect, and even its gender because wing beat patterns are unique to each species and gender. This is important in preventing malaria because only female mosquitoes bite humans

But now... if we switch them all to female first, THEN zap them... I can agree.

My right hand

[Snotnose]

for one, welcomes our trannie mosquito porn.

Nix

[manu0601]

Nix, like the Greek goddess of infernal night?

A bit analog and not fully digital

[dbIII]

All that said, in purely biological terms there's some people that don't fit the standard definition, let alone the more stringent sporting definitions (eg. the athlete in the 1970s who failed to test as genetically female but has given birth twice without any artificial assistance), so it's nowRe:I thought Nix was only for lice!?here near as sharply defined or simple as you suggest.

but you still can't do stuff like change the shoulder-to-waist ratio, hand and foot sizes, etc

All statistical. Apart from body hair I'm sure it possible to find more "manly" looking women out there than most of the males posting to this site - though outliers people are a pretty varied bunch.

And this is also neglecting many other things, such as that men's and women's brains have different structures

Once again, those people in the middle and statistics come into play, a range instead of ones and zeros.

Confused Mosquitoes ...

[PPH]

... just stay in their parent's basement, looking at /b/.

Re:Interesting but not practical

[KGIII]

They missed the asterisk and capitalization. They mean *NIX.

This can't end well

[hyades1]

Yeah, I can see some kind of Jurassic Park scenario playing out when they try this, and with our luck it will occur in Winnipeg, which is renowned for the size, voracity and general thuggishness of its female mosquito population.

I have little doubt we'll wind up with packs of mosquitoes sporting flannel shirts, Doc Martens and schnozz spikes the size of a rhino horn, along with the general demeanor of a Conservative whose wife just left him for an environmentalist.

Re:This can't end well

[Reziac]

Ah yes, the land of twin-engine mosquitoes...

Q: What does a tundra mosquito call a bus full of kids?
A: Sardines!!

Re:This can't end well

[hyades1]

ROFL! Sorry I didn't answer sooner. Great joke!

Cheers!

Re:This can't end well

[Reziac]

We just started our mosquito season here... so far they're just little gliders, but the dive-bombers will be along in a bit.

Oxitec

[brianerst]

I wonder if this would be any more effective than the GMO mosquitoes developed by Oxitec. It's a fascinating technology - the mosquitoes are modified to have a "dominant lethal" allele that can be suppressed by feeding the mosquitoes tetracycline. They raise a generation of mosquitoes with access to tetracycline, separate out the males, and release them into the wild, where they breed with wild females. All their offspring die during the larval phase. The release plan usually overwhelms the local wild male population, so the population crashes hard (90+%) within a generation or two. And the trait doesn't "escape" because it's 100% lethal even with just one allele.

They've had a lot of success in their field trials - Brazil is moving forward with it, as are several Caribbean islands. They were going to use it one the Florida Keys but, of course, someone sued to stop it, so it's on hold ATM.

Re:Oxitec This stuff can be very risky indeed ...

[tkjtkj]

This sort of bio-engineering can have possibly far-reaching and disastrous results. These insects are major components of various food chains .. Bats, e.g., depend on them .. and where bats comprise 25% of earth's mammalian body-weight, it's clear the ramifications could be tremendous.. It might be best were they to obtain a 'switchable' lethality approach . .. where there'd be less risk of total destruction of all mosquito populations, whether they be part of a disease cycle or not .. It's the 'nots' that would be key, here ... I should think.

Re: Oxitec This stuff can be very risky indeed ..

[brianerst]

Bats don't depend on them at all as far as we can tell. Studies of the stomach contents of bats (and purple martins, another supposed mosquito abated) found less than 1% of their diet consists of mosquitoes. They just aren't nutrient dense - you'd have to eat a lot of mosquitoes to support the metabolism of a bat (flying mammals have high metabolisms). Insectivorous bats primarily eat moths and wasps. Mosquitoes are a rounding error in terms of their diet.

Re: Oxitec This stuff can be very risky indeed ..

[brianerst]

I should also note that the Oxitec technology is very targeted - it only affects one (Ae. aegypti) out of 3,500 mosquito species. Where it is currently being used (the Americas), that species in a non-native invasive species, introduced only in the last few decades. No native species at all depends on Ae. aegypti and they make up less than 1% of any American mosquito population.

Re: Oxitec This stuff can be very risky indeed ..

[Reziac]

Very interesting. Now if they can target the other species that feed on humans... I'm sure there will be plenty left of the species that only feed on plants, or not at all in the adult phase.

Ironic that some folks scream "GMO!" on the one hand, and ignore "invasive species" on the other...