cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,442
Breeding two selected breeds is not the same thing as introducing bad code.
Why Alphabet has released millions of mosquitoes into densely populated cities
- Thread starter Greg S
- Start date
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,949 +4,027
Breeds. Breeds are made by introducing genetic mutations. Introducing new code and selecting for that code. Those changes are needed in the first place.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,442
If you think I am two faced about the genetic modifications, you are mistaken. As I said it will backfire one day. Especially when the modification is as this topic suggest.
And then the virus mutated and made California a living hell. The neighborly states have called to war every man and child able to bare arms and crowbar. The future is in their hands... In every theater this winter.
S
senketsu
"In other parts of the world, the bloodsucking pests carry deadly diseases responsible for taking the lives of more than one million people every year."
this is why, in SE Asia, dioxin is still legal for use despite being banned in the rest of the world. Last I heard anyway.
this is why, in SE Asia, dioxin is still legal for use despite being banned in the rest of the world. Last I heard anyway.
Uh try telling that to California and Oregon.
wiyosaya
Posts: 11,588 +12,687
If the pathogen were eliminated, there would be no need to eliminate the mosquito.
I think what you are implying is that selective breeding is significantly different than editing DNA in a laboratory and re-introducing it to what ever one is trying to modify.
I don't disagree, since polio is almost non-existent at this point, and there are advances that have been significant. However, recent news is that there is a new polio like virus that is wreaking havoc. We do not know how that came to be at this point. We also have the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria that it would be hard to argue is as a result of anything other than the attempts to eradicate harmful bacteria.
Even in the context of significant research, something could be missed. Do we really know all there is to know about this species of mosquito? Personally, I would be surprised if we did. As I see it, the danger is not in what we know, but in what we don't know.
IMO, the elimination of the pathogens may do less harm than eliminating a singular carrier species.
Anyone with spare computing cycles can contribute to that effort: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/zika/overview.do
There's an interesting article on the issue at - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35408835
One point that is brought up is what happens if by eliminating even only this species of mosquito, another insect species replaces it that is more efficient at transmitting the disease?
Its impossible to know exactly how eradication would play out.
ShagnWagn
Posts: 1,297 +1,086
Mosquito bites make me itch like crazy. It really bothers me and makes it really hard for me to be outside in the summer. I also hate spraying myself with chemicals so I can be outside. I almost feel like itching just being outside in the evening without being sprayed. 
I'm not sure what to think about releasing these in the wild, but I would think other strategies have been tried? Do mosquito catchers work very well? I'm thinking of propane ones or alternatives. Why not put these out instead? Any other ideas?
I'm not sure what to think about releasing these in the wild, but I would think other strategies have been tried? Do mosquito catchers work very well? I'm thinking of propane ones or alternatives. Why not put these out instead? Any other ideas?
S
senketsu
Polio, smallpox and the like will never be eradicated totally because the big powers always retain some for chem/bio warfare and research. Their thinking is "well what if the other guys have some, we need some!"
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,949 +4,027
We can play "What If?" for everything that anyone ever plans to do. What if the wheel results in more injuries? What if powered flight causes more deaths? What if using computers cause more cancer? I'd rather we do something as opposed to sitting around wringing our hands. Of course not charging in blindly, but at some point a promising technology needs to be tried.
You evaluate and do the things that have the most positive net benefit. Most Positives and least Negatives. The positives of eradicating mosquitoes *greatly* outweighs the negatives.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,442
It is way too soon for that comment. They commented, they do not know the long term effects of their own project.
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,949 +4,027
You're probably right about that. I'll amend that to say that I seriously doubt the negative effects of eradicating mosquitoes will be more than a footnote when compared to the benefits.
S
senketsu
Don't forget Alphabet is the company that owns Google. 'Nuff said
Kibaruk
Posts: 3,836 +1,189
I'm not an environmentalist to say so, but they don't simply exist without a purpose, other species eat them, which are eaten by other species, which then are eaten by birds, or by reptiles... who at their turn are eaten by something different...
It's an ecosystem for a reason, how can they measure the impact?
Similar threads
