[ethanbond]

Almost certainly I'd feel different. To be absolutely clear, I find the case for eradication to be extremely compelling for exactly that reason. The risk I have in my head that I want to mitigate, and which makes me unsure of where I stand on this issue, is not any sort of ambiguous "humans shouldn't play god" or "live and let live" or anything like that. The obverse risk we should consider when fiddling with an ecosystem on such a grand and potentially irreversible scale is whether we will accidentally disrupt the food supply in a way that's more catastrophic than the current catastrophe that is malaria.

There aren't many catastrophes worse than the current state of malaria, I absolutely agree and we in the western world ought to take it much more seriously. However, there are possible catastrophes that are much much worse, and fiddling with low level food chains is one of those actions that might open us up to such risk.

Again, not sure where I stand. What I do know is, presumably like you, I think we are not taking this seriously enough and addressing it with all the might that it deserves.

[HappyDreamer]

Ok, I agree about that, and thanks for having explained :-)