In a recent thread, ways of dealing with mosquitoes as a disease vector were mentioned (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14150.msg321479#msg321479). In an article on Slate, a much more drastic approach is promoted. "Let's Kill All the Mosquitoes" (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/01/zika_carrying_mosquitoes_are_a_global_scourge_and_must_be_stopped.html)
The effect this might have on food chains is mentioned, and I wondered about that. Looking around, I found a blog post (https://cameronwebb.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/what-do-bats-eat-more-often-mosquitoes-or-moths/) about a paper on how much certain Australian bats actually depend on mosquitoes for food. Turns out it's not that much, but I'd need to do more research to be convinced that this is actually a good idea. The author does admit that "no one really knows for sure" what the effect of wiping out all mosquito species on Earth would be, though there is a link to Nature article from 2010 (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html) that promotes the idea that it wouldn't do much harm. I don't like mosquitoes at all (because they really seem to like me) and have become a proficient mosquito hunter over the years, so personally I wouldn't miss them, and I doubt anybody would.
There are a whole gaggle of different bat species. Some of them, not all, do devour mosquitos. Many other bat species do away with all manner of pests, insects and otherwise, that have a direct bearing on the general welfare of humans. It has been shown conclusively that bats have a positive affect on agricultural interests which affects the general prosperity and even survival of the local populations.
Most of us regard bats as some sort of scary pest that carry rabies or deliberately tangle them selves in peoples hair.. Wrong on both counts. There is only one isolated species of bat, in southern Mexico I believe, who have a significant incidence of rabies. The rest of the many species are benign. All things considered we need those little creatures.
Asmo will almost surely approve of this little known reality. Bats are flying ratties, right?
Well, certainly in Australia and no doubt in other countries too, mosquito larvae form an important food source for small native fish. I really think that the idea of removing an entire group of species from the environment is fraught with unexpected consequences. We have a poor record of modifying ecosystems and I for one am completely opposed to this sort of ill thought out program.
Yes, I didn't think that the article in Nature was particularly convincing. Janet Fang, its author, is apparently not a scientist (https://www.linkedin.com/in/janetfang), and seems to be too willing to dismiss anything that goes against her idea.
The idea of killing off anything completely scares me -- I figure if something's here then there's a reason for that and it's not like you get a backsie if a forced extinction doesn't turn out right.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 03, 2016, 12:00:36 AM
The idea of killing off anything completely scares me -- I figure if something's here then there's a reason for that and it's not like you get a backsie if a forced extinction doesn't turn out right.
Poleo and smallpox are no loss.
Quote from: Tank on February 03, 2016, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 03, 2016, 12:00:36 AM
The idea of killing off anything completely scares me -- I figure if something's here then there's a reason for that and it's not like you get a backsie if a forced extinction doesn't turn out right.
Poleo and smallpox are no loss.
That's true, however, both those diseases were/are species specific to humans. There are no wider implications. With a very widespread group of species like mosquitoes the implications of removing them from the ecosystem cannot possibly be adequately assessed. As personally annoying as they may be, I am diametrically opposed to trying to remove a whole class of animal from the environment. At most, I would be prepared to look at means of control of specific species, such as the one responsible for spreading malaria, but only if I was convinced, by the evidence, that they would not leave a hole in the ecosystem. I suspect that single species eradication may well be supportable at least in some cases since there are many mosquito species to fill any holes but this needs to be properly demonstrated and of course balanced against the potential gains for human health.
President Carter vs Guinea Worm (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35484933)
QuoteThere were just 22 cases of the devastating Guinea worm disease in 2015, according to a human rights organisation.
The Carter Centre, which was set up by former President Jimmy Carter, said that represented a 83% drop from the 126 cases reported last year.
Guinea worm isn't deadly, but it is extremely painful and stops people in some of the world's poorest areas from going to work or school for months.
The former president said he wants it eradicated "next year or sooner after".
Guinea worm is particularly nasty.
It's carried by tiny water flies which sit in stagnant water. When people drink that water the Guinea worm larvae enters the body and starts maturing into a worm.
After about a year, when it's grown to around a meter long, it starts burrowing through the body and eventually causes a painful blister on the skin's surface....
Another example of a good disease eradication.
Quote from: Bluenose on February 03, 2016, 10:09:51 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 03, 2016, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on February 03, 2016, 12:00:36 AM
The idea of killing off anything completely scares me -- I figure if something's here then there's a reason for that and it's not like you get a backsie if a forced extinction doesn't turn out right.
Poleo and smallpox are no loss.
That's true, however, both those diseases were/are species specific to humans. There are no wider implications. With a very widespread group of species like mosquitoes the implications of removing them from the ecosystem cannot possibly be adequately assessed. As personally annoying as they may be, I am diametrically opposed to trying to remove a whole class of animal from the environment. At most, I would be prepared to look at means of control of specific species, such as the one responsible for spreading malaria, but only if I was convinced, by the evidence, that they would not leave a hole in the ecosystem. I suspect that single species eradication may well be supportable at least in some cases since there are many mosquito species to fill any holes but this needs to be properly demonstrated and of course balanced against the potential gains for human health.
You're quite right. Unbalancing the ecosystem so dramatically would have unforeseeable consequences.
Then there is the microfilari germ that is carried by mosquitos. The result to animals, particularly canines, is heartworm. Eventually fatal. Fortunately there are pharmaceuticals that prevent the initial deposit from developing into the lethal worm. Many dog owners ignore this risk to the detriment of the family pet or farm working dog.
Wiping out an entire insect species could be catastrophic for monkey people and give rise to vegetable based life-forms...
Planet of the grapes.
Zen