[OneGuy123]

We cannot do this in isolation because we never know if that would eg affect bird population or if we geneticaly modify mosquitos that can have unintendend consequences that no study can predict.

Do not fool yourself that you can "make a study" for everything: you cannot. You can never predict what will happen if you mess with nature on a genetic level.

This was already proven to be true when they released some GMO mosquitos which were not being able to reproduce.

BUT WAIT!

They were able to reproduce sooner or later again!

How shocking! Who would have thought!

And those scientists then said "this was not supposed to happen".

These scientists got the problem completely wrong, up-side-down: they believed that they "studied" the problem enough. The believed that they "knew enough" that this "should not have happened".

But they won't ever learn that complex system (which is pretty much everything in nature) cannot be "studied and come to a conclusion with a high degree of confidence".

"High degree of confidence" and "complex system" are opposites that cannot appear in the same sentence.

[Jon_Lowtek]

Everything has unintentional consequences, because nothing exists in isolation. Arguing that doing nothing is the only moral thing to do, because one can not perfectly predict all that will happen when one does something is absurd. As is your mockery of science, that ostentatiously dissing of a straw-man. We all know the scientific method, please don't claim it is about absolute truth and certainty.

The GMO mosquitos are a good path because the direct consequences affect mosquito genes. If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.

[vharuck]

>If it is not effective enough, then we are back to poisoning the water with delta-endotoxins, where we know the consequences on things that are not mosquitos are far more severe.

This is a good point, and probably has more harmful actions behind it. "Don't do $NEWTHING" is not the same as "do nothing." Think of all the things humans already do to reduce the harm from mosquitos:

- Bug zappers (which aren't even good at attracting mosquitos) - Draining marshlands - Dumping standing water (toads also use this for laying eggs) - Insect repellent (i.e., spreading harmful chemicals in nature) - Introducing predators

Mosquito nets are, AFAICT, the only method without collateral damage.

[OneGuy123]

You didn't get my point.

GMO mosquitos are a completely UNPREDICTABLE path.

[Jon_Lowtek]

The scale of consequences of changes to mosquito DNA is far more predictable then that of chemical water treatment, which, among other things, can and does influence the mosquito genome.

If you want perfect knowledge of everything in all details, then all consequences of every action are unpredictable. Limiting that to only the technology you dislike is unreasonable.

[throwanem]

I'd be interested to read a paper discussing what appears to be a previously unsuspected failure mode of sterile insect technique.

Granted, I have to assume that that's what you're talking about under all the absurd hyperbole, because all the absurd hyperbole gets in the way. But if that is what you're trying to get at, do you have a cite?

[OneGuy123]

The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.