|
|
|
|
|
|
by sszz
2475 days ago
|
|
|
There are legitimate concerns about efficacy (there’s research that suggests that evolution will help mosquitoes escape the gene drive effect, making it useful for only a short period of time) and about unknown ecological consequences (knocking out a primary food source in an ecosystem can have devastating health and economic consequences). That’s not to say it’s not worth it, but it is worth debating and figuring out how to do it correctly. I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s a silver bullet that is being held up by ignorant/uninformed/unethical skeptics. |
|
|
There are bio-ethicists arguing that it's wrong to eradicate an entire species. There are also biologists expressing concern about damaging the food chain.
Regarding the former concern, it's only a tiny segment of our world that actually cares whether mosquitoes exist or not as part of some abstract idealism or wishing to preserve biodiversity. Most of us would be beyond happy to see this miserable creature eradicated.
Regarding the food chain, there are some 5,000 species of mosquitoes, of which only about 100 feed on mammalian blood. Out of those 100, nine species carry disease such as malaria and zika. If we only targeted those 9, we'd have a huge win while scarcely affecting the pollination and prey species role of the rest of the family of mosquitoes.
If we targeted the 100, we'd greatly increase the quality of life for not only 7 billion humans but also for tens of millions of mammals made miserable by blood sucking swarms. The great herds of reindeer of northern Canada, for example, deliberately run in single file, to reduce exposure to mosquitoes that swarm around them in the spring. Mosquitoes are a serious parasite up there; one herd animal can lose a pint or more of blood in a single day.