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

Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Hognoxious]

The little bastards like the taste of me, but I'd be wary of creating a vacancy that something worse might fill.

Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we worry about the mosquitoes, we should first exterminate all the journalists who use the phrase "begs the question".

Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[93 Escort Wagon]

Funny thing about language - if enough people start using a word or phrase incorrectly, at some point that usage becomes the correct one.

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Dutch Gun]

What about the ecosystem? As a species we are guilty of repeatedly taking actions without thinking about the effects on the environment. Considered in isolation, anything that damages "the ecosystem" sounds universally bad. In this case, the ecosystem in question is cans, buckets, pots, water storage jars, trash, tires, and whatever else is lying around collecting rainwater. Aedes aegypti does not breed in ponds, marshes, swamps, or wetlands, and thus there are no frogs and no fish to eat these mosquitoes—one of the reasons they have done so well as a species.

A little reading of the linked articles answers some questions about this. In short, it's not at all clear this would have a significant effect on anything other than our own man-made ecosystem, and that effect would likely be nothing but positive.

I also find it a tad hypocritical when people pontificate on theoretical consequences while they are nearly completely immune to the consequences of the status quo. It's pretty damned easy to be opposed to actions that could save tens of thousands of lives a year when you personally are at nearly zero risk of dying from a tropical, mosquito-borne disease.

I'm not saying to rush into eliminating a species without due diligence, but let's not let knee-jerk reactions prevent us from at least investigating the viability of this.

Re:Meh

[ultranova]

I don't think we should be playing God and deciding who and what species deserve to be around.

Deciding people should die for the sake of preserving mosquitoes is also playing God. Once the possibility exists, you can't avoid deciding.

It is quite probable that nature itself is trying to curb our own population growth in some manner.

The closest this planet has to a nervous system is our society. Nature isn't trying to limit us any more than your body is trying to limit you. Some choices might have less than optimal outcomes, but that's no different from you getting a hangover: it's not that your body is trying to stop you from drinking, it's that it's not working well do to your actions.

If you wish to mystify this, then karma is a better framework than vengeful nature deity.