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

[LinuxIsGarbage]

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

Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[93 Escort Wagon]

Not if we keep shooting those people.

Re: Law of unintended consequences, also frosty

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[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

[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: Might want to think about that...

[Anonymous Coward]

#mosquitolivesmatter

If we're going after bloodsuckers...

[Anonymous Coward]

start with lawyers and leave the poor mosquitoes alone.

Even more reason to off mosquitos then

[SuperKendall]

Bats also eat thousands and thousands of tons of insects that otherwise would wipe out our crops.

So then bats without any mosquitos to catch would simply catch more of the crop-destroying insects, right?

Bats are still around.

More crop pests are eaten.

Mosquitos are gone.

Sounds like a win/win/win.

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:Might want to think about that...

[Carewolf]

As annoying as mosquitos are, they also serve as a food source for other species. Might be a good idea to figure out where that thread leads before you pull it...

It has been investigated. Turns out they are not important for any other species, everything that eats mosquitos mainly eat other things.

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.

We are part of natural selection

[TiggertheMad]

Mosquitoes are killing us. It would be stupid not to fight back. That's how natural selection works.

I love how people talk about natural selection as if we weren't part of it. If mosquitoes are a pest to the apex predator of the planet and it decides to eliminate them, it has lost at natural selection because it was unfit to survive in an environment where we live. Other insects that don't spread disease to the apex predator are more fit. Just because we reason and can launch space ships into orbit doesn't mean that we are somehow outside of the forces that natural selection acts with. We are one of its tools for determining survival regardless of what we think.