FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida 265
MikeChino writes In an attempt to curb outbreaks of two devastating tropical diseases in the Florida Keys, the FDA is proposing the release of millions of genetically modified mosquitoes into the area. Scientists have bred male mosquitoes with virus gene fragments, so when they mate with the females that bite and spread illness, their offspring will die. This can reduce the mosquito population dramatically, halting the spread of diseases like dengue fever.
So.... (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They're part of the fragile balance of our precious, vulnerable ecosystem. Loss of this species will bring down the wrath of Gaea upon the blasphemers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's a myth dreamt up by people wanting to protect the environment, but who had never taken any higher-level math or engineering courses and had no clue how dynamic systems function. Fragile balances are almost impossible to find in nature, for the simple reason that if something is fragile enough that any perturbation would upset it enough to destroy it, it would've self-destructed long ago before man ever showed up.
Nearly all
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Hello my honey, hello my baby...hello my ragtime gal...
Re: (Score:2)
Hello my honey, hello my baby...hello my ragtime gal...
+1 for that one. One of my favorite cartoon episodes.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Was that at Arrogant Douchebag U? Must not have had remedial biology [wikipedia.org] as an elective.
Like how New Zealand has "re-stabilized" with a quarter of its birds extinct [newyorker.com] after the introduction of rats.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how New Zealand has "re-stabilized" with a quarter of its birds extinct after the introduction of rats.
It sounds like your problem is with the quality of the new equilibrium, not with the principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Stable equalibria are also vulnerable (Score:3)
If you don't believe me remove one of the legs of your chair and see how long you can remain upright while sitting on it. Now you sprawled on the floor is also a stable equlibria but I doubt its where you want to be - and similarly a fucked up ecosystem that is "stable" with a highly reduced number of species isn't necessaily a good place to be be for this planets enviroment or frankly us.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly all surviving balances in nature are stable equilibria [wikipedia.org]. They're not fragile at all. If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point. e.g. If you tilt the bowl in the wiki picture, the ball doesn't fall off the top of the bowl like in the first picture or roll away like in the third picture.. It just settles in at a different spot on the bottom of the bowl in the second picture, now-tilted slightly.
Bullshit.
That's a myth dreamt up by people more concerned with mathematics and engineering to pay attention to how organic systems actually function.
Let us put aside for the moment that this reasoning applies to highly simplified models of ecosystems, and not ecosystems themselves. This adds a whole epistemic layer to the problem: we don't really know shit about what would actually happen given a perturbation; we barely know this for many models and for actual ecosystems you can forget about it.
But then - even model ecosystems are seldom if ever in equilibrium, and the classical stability-based equilibrium analysis may have been cutting edge in 1974 when Robert May published his seminal book, but plenty of problems with this approach have been found since then. There are a plethora of other concepts that have been developed in order to tackle its short comings, for example resilience (how quickly the system returns to equilibrium). All these concepts should always be taken with a pinch of salt; its not obvious they are relevant or even desirable goals in ecosystem management.
To speak of one particularly relevant metric to this particular issue, there are huge parameter ranges in many models in which oscillatory behavior is present. In his 2012 book, Kevin McCann argues we should focus more on whether the eigenvalues are complex (i.e. prone to decaying or sustained oscillations) than on whether their real parts are negative (the classical stability criterion). If dynamics are oscillatory and I perturb a population down, it will overshoot its original value (possibly perturbing other populations) and will also return back down (making the population spend more time in low numbers and increasing extinction risk).
Another critical concept is that of fragility proper; as opposed to the dynamical concepts, fragility is a measure of functional response to the perturbation as opposed to the dynamics of the perturbation. Just because there is a stable equilibrium for some variable doesn't mean perturbing will have no cost in terms of other critical variables. For this see Nassim Taleb's 2012 book Antifragile.
Importantly I would point out the complete disconnect between your statements and empirical observations of ecosystems. We have many studies suggesting that empirically measured ecosystems may be extremely fragile to particular types of perturbations; for example see Solé & Montoya 2001 [complex.upf.es] which identify keystone species by food web degree (number of tropic neighbors) and demonstrate fragility of total biodiversity to extinction of such keystone species. Another example is Montoya et al 2009 [esajournals.org] where a different identification of the weak spot based on inverse Jacobian / indirect interaction analysis is found. There is also work by Jane Memmott and her colleagues in identifying fragility not only particular species extinctions but also particular habitat loss. One doesn't need sophisticated analysis, however, to see ecosystems collapsing at a rapid rate not only at present but in many historical situations; indeed ecological fragility is quite possible one of the drivers of mass extinctions (present and past).
Finally, I would add that I would be the first to point out the short comings of all of these methods. The burden of proof, however, is on those engaging on sys
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you perturb them, it just re-stabilizes at a new equilibrium point.
Right. But that may takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years and a mass extinction. That new equilibrium point may not be something we want, and it may be completely devoid of humans. A desert is in equilibrium. So is Antarctica. So yes, the environment and the Earth will trudge along and find a stable point, but that doesn't give us free reign to introduce invasive species.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about mosquitoes. I'll accept the risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
How so? Food source... pollinator... is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?
There are many different species of mosquitoes. Only some of them are disease vectors. The Anopheles mosquito, which carries malaria, used to be common in Southern Europe and parts of America. When they were exterminated, they were displaced by less harmful species, with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
with no known detrimental effect (other than allowing human populations to grow).
Arguably, that is a detrimental effect. It allows human population to grow unchecked, and human society has historically adapted slowly to needing to provide its own such checks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What is the down side of a mosquito-less world?
Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!
Re: (Score:3)
Everything that eats them will starve.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll eat the other 79 species of mosquito in Florida that are NOT human disease vectors that will happily occupy the ecological niche departed by Anopholes
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
There are over 80 different [ufl.edu] species of mosquitos in Florida. This method only targets one of those species. There will still be plenty of mosquitos.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Informative)
Will this genetic variation die out in a localized manner, or will it spread globally and wipe out every mosquito?
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed. The technique [wikipedia.org] works by releasing a large number of sterile males which overwhelm the breeding population for one cycle, resulting in a massively smaller next generation. Those males die and by definition they have no offspring. Plus it's already been used internationally without such issues - TFA even mentions this:
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This technique does not sterilize the male. Offspring are still created but they die quickly. This is a different process.
The modified males then mate with wild females whose offspring die, reducing the population.
If the males can mate and produce offspring they are not sterile.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't produce any offspring that live long enough to breed, making them effectively sterile for generational purposes.
Eventually the first-generation males will die, as well, leaving just the greatly-reduced next-generation population.
Re: (Score:2)
While the outcome may be the same the way to get there is completely different than the quoted article.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Funny)
The problem is that they are genetically modified, and the hippies refer to them as "GMO Mosquitos," and thus they are unnatural abominations. They think that the mosquitos will bite people and infect them with their GMO DNA, as if they were vampires that turn humans into giant GMO mosquitos. When informed that they are releasing males, and males don't bite, they either deny that males don't bite, or insist that the few females will still make it through will bite and infect people with their GMO DNA that will cause cancer, gluten intolerance (seriously, I heard that one today), kidney disease, heart disease, hyperthyroidism, IBS, ALS, MS, Parkinson's, birth defects, and a few others that I don't remember. And no, I am not making that shit up and I am not exaggerating, anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
anti-GMOers' grasp on reality is approximately equal to Scientologists.
The difference is that at a certain level of their 'church' hierarchy, the Scientologists know exactly what is going on - and who they're taking from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
...and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population.
So... they killed about 9,5% of targeted mosquitoes? Hardly an impressive result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not my choice of words...but their meaning is clear.
Their meaning is "I don't know the meaning of the word decimate".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed.
Best said in a mad scientist voice with a "mwah hah hah" at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will die out, it's guaranteed.
Well, up to a point - it depends on exactly how this sterility is achieved; it may not be 100% waterproof, very few things really are, when you get right down to it. It could be that only 99.9% sterility was achieved, for example, so have the consequences of the small number of successful offspring been firmly established?
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2, Funny)
I predict that everything will go exactly according to plan. There will be no unforeseen consequences. Nope. No way Jose.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it will just not work at all. 2 years from now there won't be a difference.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what I hate?
Someone does something using physics, and that's great.
Someone does something using chemistry, and that's great.
Someone does something using biology, and everyone rushes to make the overused comment you just made and act as if they have, just by sitting on their couch and speculating, discovered the terrible flaw with the idea that those arrogant scientists who spent years in their field never thought of.
Something is wrong here.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
This has the potential to affect people directly. They are not talking about an experiment somewhere in a lab. They are talking about something that happens literally in their own backyard. People are responsible for their own well-being, and they should understand the risks that affect their lives. They are right to do a risk assessment. They see a potentially large effect, and do not yet understand the chance of it going wrong, so they logically assume the worst and therefore scream and shout. It's up to those arrogant scientists to better explain the experiment that is about to take place in people's backyards.
Also, biology experiments have gone wrong before. Changing the balance in an ecosystem can have huge consequences.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because most physics and chemistry experiments don't breed and multiply.
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
That's assuming everything goes to plan. Also, these mosquitoes aren't infertile, they produce offspring that are supposed to die before reaching breeding age. What happens if a small percentage don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Then they didn't get the gene to kill them. Your point?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people see "GMO", think "what's the worst thing that could happen" (whether or not that outcome is likely or even possible), and then assume that this has a strong chance of happening. At the vary least, they assume that scientists haven't ruled it out because the article they are reading online didn't specifically address what they thought of.
For example:
If a female mosquito mates with a GMO mosquito the genetic reactions could cause the next generation of mosquitoes to be twice as big
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. My. God.
If that cycle happens just a couple times... the mosquitos could be larger than the planet and their gravity would crush us all!
Stop the apocalypse! These arrogant sciencey people must be stopped at all costs!
Where'd I put my magic polished rock? I'm feeling nervous so the energy in the groundwater under my feet must not be in balance. I need to spend a few hours rubbing my magic energy tuning rock to put things right. We all have to be agents to change to make the world better, you know. *conde
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
Neither do infertile mosquitoes; your point?
My point was all about what happens when the mosquitos are not as infertile as planned. Or when another unforeseen event takes place. Obviously, if all the promises by these scientists are true, we have no problem. Unfortunately, promises made through the media (and advertising) are often not as simple as it seems.
Really, you think there's no products of modern chemistry in your backyard?
If chemical companies are going to dump something into my backyard, I will scream and shout just as loud, if not much louder. The OP said that people only complain about biology, not physics and chemistry. Obviously, once "chemistry" becomes something huge, (e.g. "fracking in your own backyard"), this little claim stops being true. If chemistry comes to your backyard, people WILL complain (and rightly so, even when the experts say that all is well).
And there have been risk assessments done, by regulators, taking into account the scientific data. Risk assessments are not something for Joe Bloe and his GED who reads NaturalNews and thinks that "GMO mosquitoes" means that they're going to bite his children and spread a zombie plague.
You seem to claim that people should just trust experts. I claim that experts should attempt to inform the public better, thereby earning their trust...
Contrary to popular belief, changing the bottom of a food chain rarely has major consequences; it's the changing of the top of a food chain that tends to have the biggest consequences. The higher up the food chain you go, not only do you have more of a profound impact on the landscape (look at how radically, say, deer overpopulation transforms a whole ecosystem), but also the more species tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Generalists means the ability to switch more readily between food sources, meaning changes further down have little impact on them. But if you eliminate a top predator from an area, the consequences further down can be profound.
So, rabbits that got released in Australia are the top predator? The Pampas grass in California is the top predator? I can make a long list of invasive species that are not the top predator and still influenced their ecosystem a lot. Grass, as far as I know, is pretty much the bottom of the food chain.
Re: (Score:3)
If some offspring survive that means that they didn't get the gene to kill them for some reason. Aka, they're just like wild populations. So.....?
Your back yard is full of the intentional products of chemical companies. Here we're talking about the intentional products of genetic engineering. You're trying to change th
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
In experiments conducted by Oxitec in Brazil and the Cayman Islands, millions of modified mosquitoes were released over a period of several months, and they ended up decimating over 95 percent of the targeted insect population. Both countries were so impressed by this result that they’re now hoping for larger-scale operations.
Re: (Score:2)
But is 95% enough? It reduces the problem for a while, but as long as there are viable mosquitoes left, they'll start breeding again until you're back where you started.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the beauty of this. While the anti-GMO folks are railing on about imagined long-term consequences, this shows that there really aren't any. It takes out a vast majority of the population for one generation. If you run this program for one year and then stop, these mosquitoes will either come back on their own or their niche will be taken over by other mosquito species. (Remember that not all mosquitoes are the same. There are 80 different mosquito species in Florida. This program is only target
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict that everything will go exactly according to plan. There will be no unforeseen consequences. Nope. No way Jose.
Time to calm down.
This has been done for years, using irradiated males to breed with females which then lay sterile eggs.
So far, no monster mosquitoes.
It should be obvious to you that this plan will result in a self eradicating strain.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
So far, no monster mosquitoes.
Next made for SyFy movie: Sharkitoes
Re: (Score:3)
They could cross promote with Frito-Lay's Doritos and come up with a new flavor....Sharkitos, shark flavored Doritos.
Ooh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they called them Mousekateers.
Re:Ooh! (Score:5, Funny)
Dibbs on opening the cage! I'll get to work practicing my mad scientist laugh! "Muahahahahaha! YES! GO FORTH AND FEED, MY CHILDREN!"
You should also practice your deflated-sounding "Oh", for when your assistant whispers in your ear that male mosquitoes feed on sap and nectar, not blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've been playing Radiant Defense too much.
WASPs (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't they already do this with screw worm flies? (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Just a different insect isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not sterilization. These mosquitos reproduce but their you die quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the idea with the screw worm flies was to release so many sterile males that they would breed with the wild females resulting in no young, while this technique will produce young that will die
I suppose that this would have benefits by preventing the female from finding another fertile male to occupy their time
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Given a healthy input of science fiction... (Score:2)
I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but it's the gunshine state, we have trouble keeping people from shooting each other NORMALLY. A zombie apocalypse will never get off the ground here.
Not that you'd notice much of a difference anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.
Why assume? This particular version of the sterile insect technique has already been applied to great success in Brazil and the Cayman Islands.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sterile insects.
The modified males then mate with wild females whose offspring die, reducing the population.
Sterile insects do not produce offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Animals that produce offspring that do not survive to adulthood are regularly called 'sterile' in biology.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but sterile [google.ca] means "incapable of producing offspring". It has nothing to do with whether or not the offspring reach maturity. If you have a reference that supports your definition I would love to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Error. You are proceeding from a healthy input of facts. The constraints of the thread are to proceed from a health input of science fiction.
This is the second best solution. (Score:2)
The best solution, and this is in our grasp, is to modify mosquitos so they will produce healthy male mosquitos that carry the modification, and either no female offspring, or sterile female offspring. This will rapidly eliminate a population.
The problem is that you would not be able to contain it - your modified males would spread uncontrollably. Do it worldwide, and we could drive aedes aegypti and the problematic Anopheles species to extinction. The only question left is should we?
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, the mosquito in question, Aedes aegypti [wikipedia.org] is not native to the Americas. If we destroy them utterly, bats and whatever will go back to eating other mosquitoes.
Secondly, the release of genetically altered mosquitoes has been done before [wikipedia.org] in the Cayman Islands, which reduced the mosquito population by 80%.
Thirdly, this type of modification (where the insects mate but the offspring don't develop) has been done in America before with the screw worm, which infected mostly livestock (and some humans). The screw worm has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, good riddance.
And finally, the headline "FDA Wants To Release Millions of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes In Florida" is one-sided and inflammatory. It does not mention "FDA wants to control several types of tropical fevers" or "FDA wants to eliminate a non-native pest that transmits disease".
Let's get everyone all worked up about the uncertainties of genetic engineering by completely ignoring the contextual reasons for doing so.
Because, you know, genetic engineering is bad in any form, even if it saves lives and brings the ecology closer to its original state.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's click-bait. The title of this "article" isn't actually that from the source, /. have deceptively taking a partial sentence from the article to stir up ad impressions. The article itself is quite sane. /. is the problem here, blame them and the so-called editors.
Won't anyone think of the dengue and chikungunya?! (Score:4, Funny)
Extinction is wrong! The hippies worked really hard to bring measles back from the brink of extinction, they're not going to stand idly by while the evil scientists with their GMO abominations try to send dengue and chikungunya off the annals of history! It's a slippery slope, next thing you know they'll want to use this technology will be used to get rid of those cute little malaria protozoans!
Re: (Score:2)
**sighs**
Measles has never been on the brink of extinction. It's still endemic in much of the Third World.
Note that the latest US outbreak is about one percent of the normal number of annual cases in the UK alone.
And it's not like CA isn't well above the 90% immunized rate that's considered "fully immunized"....
ofcourse.... (Score:2)
Heavy Weather had this as a minor plot point (Score:2)
Governor Huey released GM mosquitoes which were allergic to human blood, which meant after a generation or two, they had adapted to biting everything but humans..
Kill them all. (Score:3)
Mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, etc.
Here someone will say "but that will damage the fragile web of life and kill mother gaia" or some other drivel. The biosphere is quite stable and can survive the loss of all these species without crashing the food web.
Look at a remote tropical island that doesn't have any of these species. They exist. And guess what... they're fine. Will something that eats these things likely have a harder time finding food? Sure. But if the species isn't already on the brink of extinction then it will adapt. If it was already on that brink then chances are it was doomed in any case. Adaptive species don't get into positions like that.
And beyond that, species go extinct all the time. Always have. New species fill their niches or existing species simply expand to fill vacant niches which tends to cause them to splinter and create new species.
Here again, someone will say "but the rate of extinction has increased!" Yes it has. The biggest reason is human transport and trade. You let loose a rat from the mainland onto some little island and it is probably going to go sickhouse on the local species that likely haven't had to work as hard to survive on their little island. And yes, that rat or other relevant more vital species is likely to eradicate or out compete its rivals. Evolution at work.
Beyond that, we are also destroying habitats. And that is sad... We should try to limit that sort of damage when and where possible. However, the mosquito can go fuck itself sideways with a rusty chainsaw. I have literally zero sympathy for that species. And I am quite comfortable geo engineering the world to the extent that nightmare species like that simply don't exist. Mother nature has come up with some very impressive things over the eons. But she has also birthed some monsters. And I am quite comfortable aborting those little experiments.
Here again, someone will say "but humans are the biggest monsters"... then kill yourself. Shut up and kill yourself. I have zero patience for that drivel.
Kill all the mosquitoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at a remote tropical island that doesn't have any of these species. They exist. And guess what... they're fine.
On that basis there's no problem with getting rid of elephants, big cats, giraffes, monkeys, parrots, polar bears, blue whales or whatever, as obviously there are places on earth where they don't live.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you're concerned with is not damaging the biosphere so that life can continue on earth... yep. We could kill all of them and the biosphere would survive.
Really, all it needs is bacteria, insects that are useful to plants, and plants.
Here you'll likely point out some unusual situation where mosquitos pollinate or something. That isn't vital. Worms serve a much larger role. Even bees could be done without if you had to... keep in mind that plants were sexually reproducing long before bees or similar in
I'm tired (Score:2)
I'm tired of these mfin mosquitos made out of mfin viruses!
More probably, I think this will lead to... (Score:2)
And we will end up with super-mosquitos that are even more resistant to anything we try to throw at them.
WTF, Why aren't we doing this already? (Score:2)
Mosquitoes and the diseases they carry kill over one million people a year. [mosquitoworld.net] Why the fuck aren't we doing this more to get rid of all Mosquitoes or at least greatly reduce their numbers?
Re:Comming back to bite you in the ass sometime so (Score:4, Interesting)
More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc
I've read other articles [theguardian.com] that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.
Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!
I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!
Re: (Score:2)
Life in general finds a way, but that doesn't mean that specific species find a way. If it did then T-Rexes would be walking around today. Instead, we have birds which evolved from dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:3)
We've got almost a hundred varieties of the little assholes, this ONE type of mosquito is not a keystone anywhere in the ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mosquitos aren't radioactive.
But they are! Ordinary background radiation, mostly caused by the sodium in their blood.
Re: (Score:2)
to infect humans
With male mosquitoes? (Hint: they can't bite).
Re: (Score:2)
You must buy into the SJW propaganda on tumblr.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Now we have GMO Cyborg Mosquitoes.
Thanks, scientists!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FDA...? Do they consider mosquitos food or drugs?
Re: (Score:2)
FDA...? Do they consider mosquitos food or drugs?
Yes.
Re:Food Chain? Environment? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets see Myxomatosis - 99.8% of the rabbit population destroyed in 2 years
Over time the numbers of rabbits resistant to the virus increased and in 1995 the rabbit haemorraghic disease virus RHDV was released to again cull the numbers. Even in 1995 when RHDV was release the rabbit population was no where near the 1950s population which was destroying pastoral Australia.
Cane toads on the other hand - now that was a fuckup.
Re: (Score:2)
Hominins take decades to reproduce - maybe it's been done and we haven't noticed yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear FDA, Please consider the ecological side-affects. With mosquito repellent & decent medical care most humans can survive mosquito born illness, but birds and other bug-eaters will starve.
You left out mosquito repellent manufacturers and decent medical care providers.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a RadioLab podcast on this very subject about ten months ago: http://www.radiolab.org/story/... [radiolab.org]
The prevailing wisdom seems to be that the ecosystem will not take a huge hit. I believe the quote was something like, "It will just be like Los Angeles is all the time". The best they could come up with was that it could allow some better predators to thrive, but they seemed pretty unsure.
However, I do agree that people tend to underestimate these sorts of impacts. More ethanol use == more dying peop