Genicide of Mosquitoes

[DylanTK]

Mosquitoes are pollinators, and many things eat them (particularly the nymphs), it would be unwise to remove them from the ecosystem just because we find them to be a nuisance. If we could genetically modify the females not to need blood for egg production, but still allow them to be the pollinators they are the rest of the time, that would be a win-win.

[ReginaL]

The thought of eradicating an entire species deliberately is troublesome to me. Mosquitoes are a significant food source for many other species, including waterfowl, bats, dragonflies, fish, and red-eared turtles. The Malaysian jumping spider preys almost exclusively on mosquitoes. (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/07/mosquitoes-insects-jumping-spiders-malaysia-animals-science-predators-prey/)

You cannot simply wipe out an entire species and assume that it will have no significant impact on the ecosystems in which it is found. I live in Louisiana and, believe me, we have more than our share of mosquitoes. We also have large populations of bats, fish, waterfowl, and red-eared turtles. I hate to imagine what might happen to those other species were we to wipe out a significant food source. They might be able to make up some of the loss by eating something else. What happens to species which then might have to compete over a food source where there was little to no competition before? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. We may set in motion a domino effect and there's no way to confidently predict where the last domino may fall.

[brimstoneSalad]

Mosquitoes are pollinators, and many things eat them (particularly the nymphs), it would be unwise to remove them from the ecosystem just because we find them to be a nuisance. If we could genetically modify the females not to need blood for egg production, but still allow them to be the pollinators they are the rest of the time, that would be a win-win.

Here's a good article on the topic: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

There are many species of mosquito, most of them don't bother people, only a couple hundred bite humans. The niche could be quickly filled by other species of mosquito or similar insects.

Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before — or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal. A world without mosquitoes would be "more secure for us", says medical entomologist Carlos Brisola Marcondes from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil. "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."

, it would be unwise to remove them from the ecosystem just because we find them to be a nuisance.

Just because we found them to be nuisance, that would be true. But that's not the case; they're not just a bother in the way of (for example) cockroaches (which we need to keep out of our homes, but the stray insect outside is not a problem). Mosquitoes carry and actively transmit deadly diseases. Even recently, Zika virus, which causes severe birth defects. Anything that habitually exchanges bodily fluids with multiple humans as part of its life cycle is distinctly dangerous; far beyond a mere nuisance. There's no way to engineer them to be completely disease proof (we can target diseases one by one, and enter into an evolutionary arms race with the pathogens which will evolve ways around our changes, but this isn't the safest option).

If we could genetically modify the females not to need blood for egg production, but still allow them to be the pollinators they are the rest of the time, that would be a win-win.

There are already many species that fit that description, both closely and more distantly related to the mosquitoes that feed on human blood. No need to reinvent the wheel.
An evacuated ecological niche is filled quite quickly. Invasive species are a much more serious risk than extinction.

We now have the technology to change the entire population:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_OhvOumT0
This is just talking about introducing malarial resistance, but it also mentions the possibility of creating all male species which kill themselves off in a few generations.

[brimstoneSalad]

Mosquitoes are a significant food source for many other species, including waterfowl, bats, dragonflies, fish, and red-eared turtles. The Malaysian jumping spider preys almost exclusively on mosquitoes.

A rare few species which are specialized to eat particular kinds of mosquitoes may go extinct. We have to weigh that harm (which isn't as much of a harm to sentient individuals -- what is the moral value of a species?) to the harm done by mosquitoes and the diseases they carry.

To quote from the article I linked in the last post:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/ ... 6432a.html

Most mosquito-eating birds would probably switch to other insects that, post-mosquitoes, might emerge in large numbers to take their place. 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?"

With many options on the menu, it seems that most insect-eaters would not go hungry in a mosquito-free world. There is not enough evidence of ecosystem disruption here to give the eradicators pause for thought.

You cannot simply wipe out an entire species and assume that it will have no significant impact on the ecosystems in which it is found.

I don't think we're really assuming; we've seen ecological niches filled many times after species extinction, and in the case of disease carrying mosquitoes, there are many other species waiting to fill that niche.

I hate to imagine what might happen to those other species were we to wipe out a significant food source.

That's just it, though: when stomach contents are examined, it's found that mosquitoes aren't significant food sources for these animals.
It's the assumption that because we, as humans, see a lot of mosquitoes that they are an important food source for other animals that is mistaken.
We see so many mosquitoes because they're attracted to humans. They make up a very small fraction of most biomass.

We may set in motion a domino effect and there's no way to confidently predict where the last domino may fall.

So, worst case, what if a hundred or a thousand species go extinct? Mosquitoes aren't important to the human food supply.
How many species have to go extinct before we can justify saving human lives?

I put very little moral value upon species, but upon sentient individuals.

I don't believe many species would go extinct, if any would, from eliminating human-biting mosquitoes.
And I think it's equally morally justified to eliminate serious pests of other sentient macrofauna to improve their lives.

[ReginaL]

So, worst case, what if a hundred or a thousand species go extinct? Mosquitoes aren't important to the human food supply.
How many species have to go extinct before we can justify saving human lives?

I put very little moral value upon species, but upon sentient individuals.

I don't believe many species would go extinct, if any would, from eliminating human-biting mosquitoes.
And I think it's equally morally justified to eliminate serious pests of other sentient macrofauna to improve their lives.

Aren't those theoretical species (potentially) made up of sentient individuals? Which species (composed of sentient individuals) do you place value on?

Personally, I don't necessarily place value on mosquitoes as a species, but I do place value on their place in ecosystems. I guess I'm interested in where you would draw the line in regard to killing animals in order to provide benefit to humans or in order to eradicate disease. For example, do you regard vivisection as a practice necessary to human well-being? What about drug testing on animals? Euthanasia in order to provide animal cadavers for research? I'm seriously interested in where your line is drawn.

*edited for clumsy sentence structure

[brimstoneSalad]

Aren't those theoretical species (potentially) made up of sentient individuals?

Sure, and they have value as individuals, but the extinction of the species itself is pretty much without negative value.

Much like I would look upon the deaths of thousands or millions of people in a genocide as bad, but I don't see innate value in a culture or genetic lineage (it's only valuable to the extent it is valued by those who hold it).

Let's look at how mosquitoes would go extinct (the most likely scenario):

A genetically engineered male mosquito would be introduced (or, a few thousand), with genes that ensure all offspring will be male (of the same type).
The next generation, all of those male offspring mate again, and all of their offspring are male. After a few generations, there are just no female mosquitoes born.
All of the mosquitoes can live out their natural lives, there's no need for pesticides or harming the mosquitoes. At the end of the last generation (where there are no more females), they just never have another breeding cycle.

Which species (composed of sentient individuals) do you place value on?

No species in itself, only the individuals that make up the species.

A species can have value based on effect, but because of the effect. Humanity has much more value as a species based on its potential. Honeybees have value due to their role in human agriculture.

I guess I'm interested in where you would draw the line in regard to killing animals in order to provide benefit to humans or in order to eradicate disease.

I wouldn't see this as killing animals. Over a few years, for example, those spiders would have less to eat, would be able to devote less energy to reproduction, and would die out. Same with possibly some fish species (although it's not even clear this would happen).

There may be some argument to be made for killing off the species over a few years so the adjustment is as gentle as possible.

For example, do you regard vivisection as a practice necessary to human well-being?

I don't now, at least not for most things, but that's because we have access to superior models using human cells and even some "organs on chips" which are being developed.
In the case that killing mice will cure a disease and save human lives, I don't oppose it.

What about drug testing on animals?

I don't see them as very useful, but it depends on the drug. Animals can help in establishing the LD50, which is valuable information that can inform human testing and make it a little safer.

Euthanasia in order to provide animal cadavers for research?

This is completely unnecessary today. Schools are already moving away from this. PCRM does a lot of work on this stuff.

It won't be very long until vivisection is a thing of the past now that we have superior alternatives.
However, I believe they were justified before we had those alternatives.

[ReginaL]

Thanks for your answers. You've provided some interesting food for thought.

[ThunderKiss65]

Mosquitoes are blood sucking anthropods because they are dependent on a blood meal from a human host for survival. Mosquitoes are vectors, or transmitters of disease. They are in deed a parasite and should be eradicated, think about malaria an infectious disease carried by mosquitoes that kills over 660,000 people a year. I live in south Florida and in Miami there have already been over 20 confirmed cases of Zika virus, this week confirmed & preformed by door to door vists by the CDC. Most infected individuals where a symptomatic, meaning showing no signs of illness! The zika virus can be transmitted via sexual intercourse!! Public acceptance of mosquito control is a must for proper eradication of the Zika virus. Many are fearful of the gm mosquitoes, I am more fearful for my families life and the gm mosquitoes have shown success in Brazil, public acceptance is key. Florida is a red state many fear the gm mosquitoes and it could actually kill many of us.


I'm sure one wouldn't argue about the removal of ticks, fleas, mites or lice. Or say the removal of a roundworm or tapeworms.

[_Doc]

Update!
So the FDA gives the green light to GM mosquitoes into the US. The first test will be released in Florida Keys. But, they don't know when they will release them just yet.

Link:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fda-oks-first-gm-mosquito-trial-us-hurdles-remain?tgt=nr

[Harambe]

This may be a little too large of a question, but will it actually be possible to totally and completely eradicate smaller, microscopic parasites, maybe even down to disease causing bacteria? It sounds a bit ambitious to me.

I don't personally condone this though. The positives, in my opinion, would be outweighed by the negatives.