Should We Kill All The Mosquitoes? (bbc.com)

If scientists could send Zika-carrying mosquitoes into extinction, should they do it? Several science and business journals are now exploring the question, and Slashdot reader retroworks asks if scientists will ultimately target "not just the most deadly species of the animal, but all 12 species of human-biting mosquitoes in the world, responsible for 500,000 deaths per year." The headline on today's [paywalled] Wall Street Journal article begs the question, "Why Not Kill Them All...?" [M]ore business journals are exploring private sector investments to eradicate the species of mosquito entirely, [and] most articles seem to find extinction of the indoors-attacking, dengue fever- and malaria-spreading Aedes aegypti a tantalizing prospect...

The BBC weighed the approach more carefully, noting that mosquitoes make rain forests uninhabitable (and consequences of human populations in rain forests are usually disastrous)... Will capitalism make the itch of mosquito bites be forgotten... Forever?

Comments

Re:Food supply for bats

[Anonymous Coward]

This article argues otherwise and says the environmental impact would be negligible: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

Other insectivores might not miss them at all: bats feed mostly on moths, and less than 2% of their gut content is mosquitoes. "If you're expending energy," says medical entomologist Janet McAllister of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colorado, "are you going to eat the 22-ounce filet-mignon moth or the 6-ounce hamburger mosquito?"

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[fortfive]

If it weren't /., I wouldn't get technical, but "deet" does not kill or even "repel" mosquitos. It does a so-so job of masking your sweet scent to them. IDK if various species are evolving to detect your scent through deep woods off better (I doubt it), but they are not developing a "resistance."

China's Four Pests Campaign

[WD]

Eliminating pests sure worked well for the Chinese, didn't it? http://io9.gizmodo.com/5927112...

Here is a picture of somebody in China hand-pollinating a pear tree due to one of the unintended side effects (no bees): https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9wT...

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Applehu Akbar]

You can't imagine consequences because you lack any kind of knowledge about nature.

While they are undesirable for humans, mosquitoes are the source of food of a very large number of animals. Bats, lizards, frogs, fish, birds, etc many of them survive on eating mosquitoes. Kill the mosquito and you will be killing a good number of species of animals that depend on them.

Not so, actually: out of the 3,500 species of mosquitos out there, only about 200 bite man. The only dire consequence of eliminating these is that great Green boogeyman of more humans surviving tropical diseases. Mosquito-eating species can easily switch to other, similar, bugs:
http://www.nature.com/news/201...

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[davester666]

Yes, there are very few things that humanity has "done" where afterwards we've gone "you know, that was very fucking stupid to do." We are very good at foreseeing the consequences and all the interactions of various courses of action and selecting the 'best' one available.

It's what has made this world such an awesome place to be.

Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[The Grim Reefer]

Does that mean if people keep using the phrase "I could care less", then the words could and couldn't officially switch meaning?

Yes, actually it does. The term "awful" used to mean the exact opposite of what it does currently. At one time if someone was in awe of something it was awful. Now awesome has replaced it and awful means the opposite.

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEET#Mechanism_and_effectiveness

Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[the_povinator]

Actually, Zika is pretty serious. For one thing, scientists now believe that even in those pregnant women who were infected who had *apprently* normal babies, those babies may have neurological defects that may not show up immediately. Some of these babies have abnormal brains inside normal-size skulls, and in others the effects may be more subtle but still present.

And also a recent study on adult mice showed that Zika appears to kill their brain stem cells https://goo.gl/zhz7VB.

It's not known whether this might have long-term neurological consequences in humans, and what they might be, because the strain of Zika that causes these neurological problems has not been around that long.

The previously circulating strains do not seem to have caused these problems like microcephaly.

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[phayes]

Aedes aegypti is an invasive species in the Americas and doesn't lays it's eggs in water that typically hosts dragonfly larvae. It's elimination from the americas poses no threat here. Even in it's native range there are other, non pathogen spreading species that are more important to dragonflies than Aedes aegypti.