[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.