Extincting mosquitoes and other blood-sucking, disease-spreading parasites

Should we extinct malaria-spreading mosquitoes and other blood-sucking, disease-spreading parasites?

  • Total voters
    5
sideshowbob said:
There's a difference between eradicating a disease and eradicating a species. Many diseases have been (practically) eradicated by simply providing clean water.

And as I said, eradicating the mosquito doesn't necessarily eradicate the diseases that it carries. Diseases have been around for a long time; they're survivors; eliminate one avenue of attack and they're likely to evolve a new one.
Click to expand...
And as I already admitted -
Peter Dow said:
Other ways of spreading blood-born diseases exist - such as drug users sharing dirty needles. So we know that if a drug user with malaria shares a needle with another drug user then malaria could spread that way, as could many other diseases, like HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C.

So sure, it could and would happen in such cases but that's a smaller and easier problem to deal with than the mosquitoes spreading the disease.

Just because one giant step forward doesn't solve everything is no reason not to take that giant step forward.

There is no one step that mankind can take that will solve all our problems. People who think there is are not scientists.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Dow said:
The verb "to extinct" is conjugated here.
Click to expand...
It is a recent invention, an awkward and unrecognized one, and an unnecessary one - the adjective "extinct" derives from the past participle of the root of "extinguish", which is the verb you seek.

Peter Dow said:
Species go extinct all the time and the ecosystem is just fine.
Click to expand...
That kind of carelessness should not be allowed to do anything, much less run a genetic manipulation outside a lab.
 
iceaura said:
It is a recent invention, an awkward and unrecognized one, and an unnecessary one - the adjective "extinct" derives from the past participle of the root of "extinguish", which is the verb you seek.
Click to expand...
As any fire fighter can confirm, a fire which has been extinguished can sometimes reignite. So one might assume that something else which has been extinguished also may not stay extinguished.

However, a species which has gone extinct stays extinct.

So if we want to use a short-form for "to render extinct" / "to make extinct" / "to cause to go extinct" etc. then "to extinct" implies extinction more accurately than "to extinguish".


iceaura said:
That kind of carelessness should not be allowed to do anything, much less run a genetic manipulation outside a lab.
Click to expand...
That kind of high-handedness shouldn't be heeded by anyone, much less by a scientist.

I'm not "careless" about the ecosystem but I don't care about mosquitoes which the ecosystem can do without and I do care about the health of those who are now at risk of catching, or who would in future suffer from, mosquito-borne diseases if we don't extinct the pest species.
 
Last edited:
Peter Dow said:
As any fire fighter can confirm, a fire which has been extinguished can sometimes reignite. So one might assume that something else which has been extinguished also may not stay extinguished.
Click to expand...
You can misuse the word "extinguish" - that does not make "extinct" a verb.
Peter Dow said:
I'm not "careless" about the ecosystem but I don't care about mosquitoes which the ecosystem can do without
Click to expand...
You are not careless about the ecosystem, but you are willing to make dramatic and uncontrollable and cascading alterations in its genetic pool from a position of complete ignorance. Got it.

Before you do this, check out the early days of global DDT broadcast. See if the arguments used sound familiar.
Peter Dow said:
That kind of high-handedness shouldn't be heeded by anyone, much less by a scientist.
Click to expand...
You mean this bizarre threat - "Species go extinct all the time and the ecosystem is just fine." ?
Nobody who talks like that should be allowed to handle edge tools in a natural environment.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
You can misuse the word "extinguish" - that does not make "extinct" a verb.
Click to expand...
Well "to google" didn't used to be a verb either so don't be too proud of this linguistic pedantry you have constructed. The ability to cite from a dictionary is insignificant next to the power of people to use words as they see fit.

iceaura said:
You are not careless about the ecosystem, but you are willing to make dramatic and uncontrollable and cascading alterations in its genetic pool from a position of complete ignorance. Got it.
Click to expand...
Well that's what nature does all the time when species go extinct.

iceaura said:
Before you do this, check out the early days of global DDT broadcast. See if the arguments used sound familiar.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine that anyone claimed that DDT was a species-specific pesticide but if you can find such a quote, I will read it.

iceaura said:
You mean this bizarre threat - "Species go extinct all the time and the ecosystem is just fine." ?
Click to expand...
Nature doesn't make "bizarre threats" when she drives species to extinction.

iceaura said:
Nobody who talks like that should be allowed to handle edge tools in a natural environment.
Click to expand...
Up until now, my excuse for not doing any gardening - "my pollen allergy" - has served me well.
I do not think that your suggestion that talking like a scientist about species extinction would serve as well.
 
Last edited:
Peter Dow said:
Well "to google" didn't used to be a verb either so don't be too proud of this linguistic pedantry you have constructed. The ability to cite from a dictionary is insignificant next to the power of people to use words as they see fit.
Click to expand...
Humpty Dumpty would be proud

:)
 
Peter Dow said:
Species go extinct all the time and the ecosystem is just fine.
Click to expand...
Well, if you call mass extinctions or disease 'fine' then that's true. There are plenty of examples of one species going extinct causing the extinction of several others, as their food source goes away - or of increases in disease and mortality as a result of an upset in a food chain.

Examples -

Due to overmining in the US, an entire species of river snail went extinct. Who cares right? Well, the harelip sucker fish did. It went extinct when its food source disappeared.

In Africa, lion and leopards are endangered, and their numbers are dwindling. As a result baboon populations have exploded, resulting in more contact with humans - and explosions in human parasites from the exposure.

So what if mosquitoes went extinct? Well, bass, birds, bats, frogs and turtles all eat mosquitoes. What if they went extinct? Bass are one of the fish that keeps freshwater ecologies in balance. Lose those and you could lose drinking water. Bats pollinate a lot of flowering plants, so you might lose whole species of plants. And lots of other people (including humans) eat plants. How about frogs? Who cares about frogs, right? Birds, fish, herons, otters and minks do, because they make up a big part of their diet.

This human conceit that 'well, we will only change this one thing and it will be fine' is why:

- we have Australia overrrun with rabbits. They were imported as food animals. After all, what can a few furry critters do? Today they devastate forests and do millions of dollars of crop damage a year.

-we have cane toads. Farmers imported them to wipe out insects in their crops. They are now the #1 invasive species in the world, and kill untold farm animals and dogs a year. (They are poisonous.)

-we have European starlings in the US, where they cause millions in damage to crops every year. They were imported so that English people living in the US could have all the birds Shakespeare wrote about near them.

Fortunately, we have now learned our lessons, and are quite careful before importing (or wiping out) any species.
 
Peter Dow said:
There is no one step that mankind can take that will solve all our problems.
Click to expand...
Peter Dow said:
I know what will happen
Click to expand...
Peter Dow said:
drug users sharing dirty needles
Click to expand...
Peter Dow said:
are not scientists.
Click to expand...

any casual readers who do not follow naturalist topics, there are entire species of birds and fish which rely on eating mosquitoes as a survival food gap between food sources.

imagine starving out hundreds of species of fish over 2 years and millions of birds...
imagine the massive increase in algae that those decomposing animals will cause and the ridiculous increase in carbon emissions from them rotting and the algae blooms caused by them and the methane created from decomposing bird carcasses and the predators like foxes and Eagles and Falcons Snakes...
(what do snakes keep in check ? mice & rats, what do eagles keep in check ? rats and mice...)
which live off those birds as a food source.
what eats ticks & plague and disease causing insects off cattle and wild animals ? birds.
 
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity said:
any casual readers who do not follow naturalist topics, there are entire species of birds and fish which rely on eating mosquitoes as a survival food gap between food sources.

imagine starving out hundreds of species of fish over 2 years and millions of birds...
imagine the massive increase in algae that those decomposing animals will cause and the ridiculous increase in carbon emissions from them rotting and the algae blooms caused by them and the methane created from decomposing bird carcasses and the predators like foxes and Eagles and Falcons Snakes...
(what do snakes keep in check ? mice & rats, what do eagles keep in check ? rats and mice...)
which live off those birds as a food source.
what eats ticks & plague and disease causing insects off cattle and wild animals ? birds.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention that the sky would fall down.
 
Peter Dow said:
You forgot to mention that the sky would fall down.
Click to expand...

Fantasy abstract dog whistle politics to use bully tactics to undermine factual value.
how dull and ordinary of you.

you claim to be a scientist
prove some scientific method by dividing the facts and commenting on them.
list some links etc.
show this supposed mind of mathematics that you claim.
being able to paint between the lines to get a certificate is a long way short of being an anti establishment anti-royalist.

are you intentionally trying to play both sides of the conspiracy fence ?

you protest about authority models yet seek the heirs they bestow to anoint yourself as a scientist.
you cant simply divide up the entire country and throw away the parts that don't suit you.
that makes you a tyrannical dictator.
associating your cause as being socialist to position yourself into a uniform as an anti establishment activist is more like Hitler youth type of programming.

don't think i haven't noticed your over tones of misogyny around your assertion to have the right to send valentines cards with anything you like written in them.
your predatory expectation to assert what you feel as a right to jam your foot in the door to force personal engagement is an act of abusive intent to assert your will over the rights of another.
regardless of how conservative you paint your moral values as a form of defense.
http://peter-dow.blogspot.com/
Next will they be claiming that anyone sending 2 Valentine's Day cards, on consecutive years is "an offence which spans 12 months"?

It was fair enough for Councillor Catriona Mackenzie to complain that my emails were "inappropriate". As a gentleman, I will always respect and honour any woman's requests not to send her any more emails, of course.

However those 2 emails I had sent before I had received any complaint from Councillor Mackenzie or from someone on her behalf. My emails were sent in sincere good faith in reply to her election campaign material and Kevin Stewart MSP's letter to me and without any intention to pester or annoy the good lady against her wishes.
Click to expand...

Peter Dow said:
You forgot to mention that the sky would fall down.
Click to expand...

oh ... didn't you already say the sky was falling down by having a monarchy ?
and the institutions who you appeal to change that do not accept your personal opinion ?

is it not you who is claiming the sky has already fallen ?

...
but by all means
start with the science discussion as soon as your ready.
 
Last edited:
if you want to talk science, talk science. if you wish to mock others for being scientific...
well, good luck with that.
your personality disorder is not other peoples ego.
you should try and remember that.
but it would require you to do some scientific reading on psychology.

if you separate the 2, you may be able to go on and do some science.
it would be a sad to have your talent lost amongst stodgy childhood behavior crutches & nonsense conspiracy thinking.
 
Last edited:
Peter Dow said:
They also eat moths, beetles, other flies etc. They'll be fine.
Click to expand...
Ignorance at that bottom level of basic understanding should not be allowed to make significant genetic manipulations outside of laboratories and other adult supervised settings. They are too dangerous.

In fact, without very reliable assurance that these gene drive extinctions of pest species are under the complete control of people who know better than that, they should be forbidden altogether.
 
https://animals.mom.me/mosquitoes-valuable-ecosystem-8494.html
Population Control
The very reason humans hate mosquitoes so much is perhaps their most important role in nature. Mosquitoes are extremely effective vectors for disease thanks to their voracious feeding patterns and built-in hypodermic needles. Mosquitoes have been thinning animal populations for millions of years, and unfortunately, the human population more recently. Without mosquitoes, many diseases would slow or stop altogether and the animal population would increase accordingly. Overpopulation in nature often leads to starvation and death, all of which is staved off in part by the lowly mosquito.

Food Source
Mosquitoes are a reliable and necessary food source for creatures ranging from fish to birds. Many of these creatures, such as many species of fish and birds, evolved along with the mosquito and developed hunting techniques specifically designed to find and capture mosquitoes. If those mosquitoes are no longer there, these animals will be without a main source of nutrition, and their population numbers could fall as a result.

On the Road
Mosquitoes are a source of food for animals and birds on the move in otherwise inhospitable regions. When birds migrate from south to north for the summer season, they count on the huge numbers of mosquitoes that swarm in certain areas. For example, the Alaskan wilderness can be a barren place where food is hard to come by. Mosquitoes are one reliable fast-food option that migrating birds count on to fuel up and keep moving. Without them, the migratory process may not be possible and the numbers of birds who survive the journey could fall dramatically.

Environmental Filters
Mosquitoes are significant to the environment as a form of natural filter. Mosquito larvae grow in water and feed on detritus that floats and clogs the surface of the water, keeping the detritus from choking off nitrogen and oxygen necessary to the survival of plants below. Without mosquitoes to eat away the waste, the plants and the ecosystem they support could vanish as well since they cannot gain access to the nutrients they depend on for life.

Pollination
The male mosquito does not feed on blood. Instead, he survives on the sugars present in plant nectar. As a byproduct of his actions, he helps to pollinate those same plants. In subarctic climates such as northern Canada and Russia, mosquitoes play a major role in plant pollination. In other regions, the mosquito is outdone by bees and butterflies when it comes to pollination. While the results of a mosquito extinction may not be felt in all areas, it would take a toll in those subarctic regions where plants rely on them for pollination.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top