[dev_dull]

> Aedes, Anopheles and Culex are found almost all over the world and are responsible for around 17 per cent of infectious disease transmissions globally."

If I understand that correctly, that is a massive number. I really like what these sterilization trials are producing. In my mind, it’s a lot safer than spraying chemicals across cities.

[luma]

It gets worse. As I posted elsewhere in the comments, an article in Nature[1] suggests that up to half of humans ever to live have died as a result of mosquito-borne disease.

In light of those numbers I feel we are ethically clear to take drastic action. We don't have to kill all mosquitoes as fewer than 1% of mosquito species feed on humans. We have several tools which will target the specific species which impact us (such as the approach used in this article). It's time we do something about it, or accept the fact that millions more humans are going to die while we wring our hands.

[1] https://www.nature.com/news/2002/021003/full/news021001-6.ht...

[pbhjpbhj]

What are the negative outcomes? Presumably we leave a niche for other mosquito or insect species to prosper in, which species will they be. Which species predate the mosquitoes we're eliminating, or how do those particular species adapt the environment and so impact the local eco-system?

If we've not found any negatives then I imagine we've not tried very hard.

Australia is kinda synonymous with species-wide population control and not in a good way; hopefully this will change that?

[joatmon-snoo]

This question comes up every time something like this makes the news, and in general the people qualified to have opinions are generally either ambivalent or believe the pros outweigh the cons.

One article: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

[pbhjpbhj]

Your source appears to support the destruction of the whole Culicidae family; and doesn't appear to care if that puts the Carmargue martens, as an example, below replacement levels of reproduction.

>"They don't occupy an unassailable niche in the environment," says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over."

Is that entomologist in the group you're allowing to have opinions? Because "<shoulder shrug> could be better or worse" doesn't appear terribly enlightened.

We've regretted destruction of killer species before (I'm thinking of the deforestation that follows wolf annihilation and the desire by some to reintroduce wolves to Scotland); we should be very careful.

IMO non-experts can add a needed objectivity to rational consideration that is often difficult for experts to tap in to.

That all said, and not that anyone cares, but I support targeted species-level eradication tests.

(Also TIL Arctic mosquitoes.)

[magduf]

One thing to remember is that many of these mosquito species are actually invasive species. A. aegyptus is from Africa, after all, so it really has no business in the Americas or Australia. Unless it's a prime food source for something else, and has also basically eradicated some other native species that served that role, I don't see how you could argue that it shouldn't be eradicated from those continents. Eradicating invasive species is almost always considered OK.

[pinko]

True, but the history of them being wrong is so long and rich it's rational to treat their assessments with a grain of salt. You can only hear, "This time is different, we've learned from the mistakes of the past," so many times before you incorporate it into your prior.

[thaumasiotes]

There is a link in another thread to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sterile_insect_techniq... .

That list suggests that the technique is an effective way of holding an insect population down in general, but not a good way of eliminating it entirely. Furthermore, the trials involving Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex are particularly unpromising:

> Culex quinquefasciatus / Myanmar / 1967 -- population eliminated

> Culex quinquefasciatus / Florida / 1969 -- population eliminated

> Culex pipiens / France / 1970 -- population "reduced"

> Anopheles albimanus / El Salvador / 1972 -- population reduced "below detection level"

> Culex quinquefasciatus / Delhi / 1973 -- population "reduced"

> Culex quinquefasciatus / Delhi / 1973 (?) -- population unaffected

> Aedes aegypti / Kenya / 1974 -- no long-term effect

> Anopheles albimanus / El Salvador / 1977-1979 -- significant reduction, but eradication prevented by immigration

> Culex tarsalis / California / 1981 -- "no population reduction"

So, in 9 trials the first 5 were whole or partial successes and the last 4 failed. (I have no idea what the story is with the two ~simultaneous trials in Delhi.) That's not great and the trend is ugly.

I tend to suspect the reason mosquitoes show up in this list with so many failures is precisely the fact that people hate them and significant efforts have already been devoted to their extermination. This strategy can't work over the long term -- either the population is wiped out quickly or not at all.