|
mycomancy posted:Hurring about a single species of insect being wiped out triggering an ecological collapse is loving stupid, we've wiped out WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than one species out of ecosystems and the ecosystems all withstood it. This wouldn't even wipe out ALL mosquitos just the malaria ones. Don't a lot of bats and other insectivores rely on mosquitoes, though? And just because we've wiped out species in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so now. I'm not saying I'm against the idea -- I loving hate mosquitoes and I would love to never have to deal with them ever again -- but I'd really like it we had more data on the subject. And if we eventually go for it, I'd rather not do so with an engineered virus. Sure, it might be just fine, it might work perfectly, or it might hop off the intended targets and cause further problems.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
So if this is the same mosquito project they were talking about trying in the Florida Keys, the idea is more heavy population control rather than total removal. It makes a second generation of sterile mosquitoes, so it can collapse a population in a given area but since they're sterile they can't really propagate beyond that area. It's probably about as safe as you could make this kind of thing, with built in self-limiting and careful controls, and they were going to try it on an island in the keys first so even if it DID go wrong, it would be containable. Naturally people in the Keys took them to court to block the trial so now we gotta test it in poor African countries because of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
yeah aedes aegypti is unlikely to be a keystone species interestingly it's often the predators way up on the food web, rather than the lower down, because an ecosystem can adapt to eat a different grass or rodent, but if you lose the apex predators, the whole mess can go out of balance quite quickly
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Cant tell if you are seriously this stupid or doing a good impression. haha good one u stupid bitch
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Don't a lot of bats and other insectivores rely on mosquitoes, though? And just because we've wiped out species in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so now. I'm not saying I'm against the idea -- I loving hate mosquitoes and I would love to never have to deal with them ever again -- but I'd really like it we had more data on the subject. If it's the one I'm thinking of they actually have quite a lot of data on this, assuming it's the Florida Keys one, and they've done tons and tons of modeling and analysis and really went to great pains to make absolutely sure it's as safe as possible with as little possibility for side effects as they can. It's not like they just woke up one morning and decided to kill all the skeeters, they've been at this for years. IIRC the lead scientist on the team has been working on this for like over a decade, and is very aware of the possibility of unintended side effects or horrible outcomes. He's doing everything in his power to make sure nothing goes wrong, if anything does go wrong it's contained, and if it's not contained it's not catastrophic. poo poo keeps him up at night, even. e: Wait where'd you get 'engineered virus' from, did something actually say that or did a poster in this thread say that? The project I know about is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes that will compete with natural ones to breed, and the generation of children they have will all be sterile, causing the population to collapse. There's no virus involved. Shame Boy has issued a correction as of 01:18 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Don't a lot of bats and other insectivores rely on mosquitoes, though? And just because we've wiped out species in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so now. I'm not saying I'm against the idea -- I loving hate mosquitoes and I would love to never have to deal with them ever again -- but I'd really like it we had more data on the subject. "bats are more important than black people"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
i think there's also some research on just turning them into nonviable hosts for malaria, but i don't know how feasible that really is
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Don't a lot of bats and other insectivores rely on mosquitoes, though? And just because we've wiped out species in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so now. I'm not saying I'm against the idea -- I loving hate mosquitoes and I would love to never have to deal with them ever again -- but I'd really like it we had more data on the subject. The idea is that there's no niche filled exclusively by mosquitoes. Usually there are other species that would flourish in the absence of M and fill their role - and often the ecosystem doesn't even need M at all, like most species that eat mosquito larvae only do so becuae the larvae eat their preferred food, so they leave them no other choice but to eat the larvae instead. Remove the mosquito from the equation and the other species actually get happier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
I mean I'm as nervous about genetic modification in the wild being done willy-nilly without enough research too but of all the projects I've heard about the mosquito one really seemed like it was the most mature and developed, best thought out and least likely to ruin everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:Don't a lot of bats and other insectivores rely on mosquitoes, though? And just because we've wiped out species in the past doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so now. I'm not saying I'm against the idea -- I loving hate mosquitoes and I would love to never have to deal with them ever again -- but I'd really like it we had more data on the subject. We're already killing most of the bats from white nose syndrome
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Genetically engineer mosquitoes with honey badger dna so they always target the scrotum
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The idea is that there's no niche filled exclusively by mosquitoes. Usually there are other species that would flourish in the absence of M and fill their role - and often the ecosystem doesn't even need M at all, like most species that eat mosquito larvae only do so becuae the larvae eat their preferred food, so they leave them no other choice but to eat the larvae instead. Remove the mosquito from the equation and the other species actually get happier. yeahs thats what i remember reading too, that the models predicted the ecosystems would adapt without much trouble. also mosquitoes gently caress up animals too so the effect would be positive in some cases
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Hurring about a single species of insect being wiped out triggering an ecological collapse is loving stupid, we've wiped out WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than one species out of ecosystems and the ecosystems all withstood it. This wouldn't even wipe out ALL mosquitos just the malaria ones. Look don't get me wrong gently caress those mosquitos I just think "virus engineering to wipe out specific species" is something the future FALGSC government can handle bc our current capitalist ones would probably end up wiping out all carbon based life on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
SpaceGoku posted:worrying about the effects of extinguishing a single species of mosquito seems like kind of missing the forest for the trees, because we're going to not have any forests left by the end of our generation's life because of climate change I really like these posts because this chicken little bullshit is what's let assholes dismiss all climate change warnings as overblown squealing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:"bats are more important than black people" Or maybe I don't want whatever method used to control the mosquitoes to get out of hand and end up creating a far-reaching ecological to make conditions even worse. Like, hey, no more malaria! And also the virus used to sterilize the mosquitoes is now affecting a lot of the pollinators and other insect life fed upon by members of the food chain who are necessary to maintain animal populations and agriculture. But hey, nice accusation of racism. Shame Boy posted:e: Wait where'd you get 'engineered virus' from, did something actually say that or did a poster in this thread say that? The project I know about is releasing genetically modified mosquitoes that will compete with natural ones to breed, and the generation of children they have will all be sterile, causing the population to collapse. There's no virus involved. I've heard about the idea in the past and one of the ideas floated was engineering a virus that would turn mosquitoes sterile. There was a pretty neat story on gene editing on Last Week Tonight that explains a few of my qualms with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJm8PeWkiEU
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
Did you miss the bit where they're not thinking of "releasing a virus"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Forests can't exist when the Earth is warm, that's why the fossil record shows forests didn't evolve until 2.6 million years ago when the poles froze over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I really like these posts because this chicken little bullshit is what's let assholes dismiss all climate change warnings as overblown squealing. anyone taking a post by me on the something awful political shitposting subforum seriously enough to base a world view in reaction to it is too stupid to be worth wasting time or energy thinking about
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Did you miss the bit where they're not thinking of "releasing a virus"? The virus thing is what I would be apprehensive of, but anything to completely remove a species may have consequences of which we are unaware. We need more data, so we can not only make sure that removing them wouldn't cause further problems, but so that the method to remove the mosquitoes doesn't accidentally affect other species as well. I'm not sure what the controversy is here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:The virus thing is what I would be apprehensive of, but anything to completely remove a species may have consequences of which we are unaware. We need more data, so we can not only make sure that removing them wouldn't cause further problems, but so that the method to remove the mosquitoes doesn't accidentally affect other species as well. How much data do you think we need, specifically? Because we already have a lot of data. Like I said, it's been in the works for years now, and quite a lot if not most of that time was spent studying effects, mitigation, etc, not developing the actual technology. It will be done slowly, in a self-limiting way, with constant monitoring of the ecosystem to make sure poo poo's not breaking down, and stopped the moment anything is out of the ordinary. It's not like they're just going to delete mosquitoes worldwide instantly and hope for the best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Exactly, it's a single species of mosquito. Literally EVERY other mosquito would be unchanged and unharmed. The dead malaria mosquito would be replaced by all the other species in the area. So, whatever, murder that species.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
but what if the malaria makes them taste good and the bats all get sad about them going away
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
They would also have a lot of data on hand about what happened when they were happily spraying DDT to reduce mosquitos. They didn't stop using DDT because the ecosystem was collapsing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
starkebn posted:They would also have a lot of data on hand about what happened when they were happily spraying DDT to reduce mosquitos. They didn't stop using DDT because the ecosystem was collapsing. No, actually, because at the time nobody was actually looking. It wasn't a coordinated project with procedures and checks and careful monitoring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:How much data do you think we need, specifically? Because we already have a lot of data. Like I said, it's been in the works for years now, and quite a lot if not most of that time was spent studying effects, mitigation, etc, not developing the actual technology. It will be done slowly, in a self-limiting way, with constant monitoring of the ecosystem to make sure poo poo's not breaking down, and stopped the moment anything is out of the ordinary. It's not like they're just going to delete mosquitoes worldwide instantly and hope for the best. How much data do I think we need? I don't know. I do know that we've been bitten in the rear end time and time again when we try to change things, though. I also know that we'll never be able to be completely sure about what we do, even after we do it -- the real consequences of our actions may not show up for generations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Hurring about a single species of insect being wiped out triggering an ecological collapse is loving stupid, we've wiped out WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than one species out of ecosystems and the ecosystems all withstood it. This wouldn't even wipe out ALL mosquitos just the malaria ones. Those wolves going nearly extinct may have triggered the slow death of one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. https://www.livescience.com/63852-failing-aspen-clone-utah.html I mean ya killing that one breed of mosquito will probably be fine or ya we might accidentally do a very bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Should i wipe my rear end? What fi it's bad 4 me. I have lots of data, but do i have enough??
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
There is no animal that eats mosquitos as their primary food source. Getting rid of one species of them to save a whole bunch of human lives is probably fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah why not just slaughter the rich take their wealth and help poor countries do whatever it is that rich countries have already demonstrably done to stop malaria. This is a solved problem already without needing future tech bioengineering that might right amok. It's just that you have to kill the rich. Kill the rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Yeah why not just slaughter the rich take their wealth and help poor countries do whatever it is that rich countries have already demonstrably done to stop malaria. This is a solved problem already without needing future tech bioengineering that might right amok. It's just that you have to kill the rich. With 212 million cases and almost half a million deaths in a year (2015) I'm going to say that it's not a solved problem. In addition, some of the solutions, such as spraying insecticide everywhere and loving with brackish water ecosystems, will most certainly cause issues like pollinator loss and ecosystem collapse. Biotech is not some sort of horrid monster any more than any other tech if it's done with precision and care. That being said, I'm 100% with you on your stance on decapitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:decapitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Yeah why not just slaughter the rich take their wealth and help poor countries do whatever it is that rich countries have already demonstrably done to stop malaria. Drain the swamp?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:If it's the one I'm thinking of they actually have quite a lot of data on this, assuming it's the Florida Keys one, and they've done tons and tons of modeling and analysis and really went to great pains to make absolutely sure it's as safe as possible with as little possibility for side effects as they can. It's not like they just woke up one morning and decided to kill all the skeeters, they've been at this for years. IIRC the lead scientist on the team has been working on this for like over a decade, and is very aware of the possibility of unintended side effects or horrible outcomes. He's doing everything in his power to make sure nothing goes wrong, if anything does go wrong it's contained, and if it's not contained it's not catastrophic. poo poo keeps him up at night, even. i talked about modified viruses as a vector for genetic engineering so maybe ppl are confused about that??? gene drives are not viruses. viral vectors may* be used for creating the initial generation of gene driven mosquitoes, but would not be involved in spreading it to the wild; the modified mosquitoes themselves would be released, and they would pass on two copies of the gene drive genes to each of their offspring, rather htan just 50% of them. *there are also other usable vectors. viruses are just one method of delivering dna to eukaryotic cells.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:With 212 million cases and almost half a million deaths in a year (2015) I'm going to say that it's not a solved problem. That's why I specified rich countries though quote:In the United States, the National Malaria Eradication Program (NMEP) was launched on 1 July 1947. This federal program – with state and local participation – had succeeded in eradicating malaria in the United States by 1951.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:That's why I specified rich countries though they literally did it with ddt you have to have a pretty high bar for how poo poo this mosquito extinction is gonna be for it to be worse than ddt
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
https://dai.ly/x2n1kda Don't fear the reaper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:they literally did it with ddt
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
what if we gave all the malaria mosquitoes a lot of money and killed them all with miniature guillotines?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
No capitalism. No png.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Those wolves going nearly extinct may have triggered the slow death of one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. That's a very sensationalist way of saying "deer have damaged several acres of woods" Not that I don't appreciate the bigger point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 09:38
|
|