> We have new ways to wipe out mosquito-borne diseases with minimal environmental cost.
Am I the only one who finds the hubris in this sentence chilling? Surely there's absolutely no way that we can be sure of the impact on the ecosystem of eradicating an entire species? And more so, surely we just can't be that confident of something like that when we have so little understanding of the complexities of most ecosystems mosquitos exist in.
The article has a tone of "we can't we wipe out mosquitos as fast as we should because of all this regulation slowing us down", but I can't help feel that's a good thing.
Even if it is somehow true that mosquitos don't play an important part in any ecosystems, surely it's a good thing that the mechanisms for wiping out an entire species are highly regulated, and can only be used if there's an extremely high bar of certainty.
We should know from global warming, that the cost of accidentally messing with nature systems can be really high, and we should tread carefully.
Edit: I know this is hacker news, and a lot of people are likely to be annoyed that I'm advocating for slowing down bio-tech developments. But I really think "care" is such an under-appreciated asset these days.
> We should know from global warming, that the cost of accidentally messing with nature systems can be really high, and we should tread carefully.
My parents continue to insist climate change is just a natural process that humans could never influence in the macro.
Large segments of the population are raised to ignore the evidence right in front of them. They are also taught it's important to vote according to their fantasy-based worldview. They boast in their stubbornness to resist what they see and hear to follow higher powers they feel in their 'hearts'.
God gave us a planet to steward. That only makes sense if he also gave us a world that could be stewarded. The idea that we can’t affect our world is ignoring the responsibility placed on us.
Stewardship as god intended is not littering, having kids, subduing nature, and bending the culture towards 1500 BCE ideas of righteousness. Major natural disasters and climate changes are all a natural consequence of humanity's disobedience from god's perfect plan.
The impact would be saving the lives of thousands of people in the short term and millions of people in the long term.
Even if it is somehow true that mosquitoes play an important part of some ecosystems, to me, it's worth the ecological damage to save the lives of millions of men, women and children in the future and prevent the suffering millions more.
I think you've missed the point, which is that a system that cares at all about mass human suffering should be literally racing to rapidly aggregate results of small scale experiments to build the confidence needed to do larger ones, and the system is not currently doing that.
We know that the current ongoing cost of mosquito-borne disease is hundreds of millions of people being debilitated and hundreds of thousands of torturous deaths every year.
It's definitely possibly I have. I agree completely with you in terms of carrying out small experiments to cautiously move towards irradiating something harmful.
But when I look back to the article, I don't see that, I see:
> with minimal environmental cost.
Stated with absolute certainty. No need for experimentation, no need to proceed with caution just "its fine, get on board or you're part of the problem".
I can't tell what the writer is really thinking, and it's definitely possible I'm projecting behaviours I see elsewhere onto the article.
Either way, I really do think, now we have these kind of capabilities, we need to improve our understanding and caution using them, or else the side effects will risk being significantly worse than the positives.
But that's not really the important thing about the post. The important part is that it takes 15 years of systemic confusion for companies to even get to the point of being allowed to do the small trials to try to answer the question of ecological impact.
> Am I the only one who finds the hubris in this sentence chilling? Surely there's absolutely no way that we can be sure of the impact on the ecosystem of eradicating an entire species? And more so, surely we just can't be that confident of something like that when we have so little understanding of the complexities of most ecosystems mosquitos exist in.
I agree with you. But most people here care more about their convenience and have the money to offset the problems caused by what humans are doing, so they don't care at all. They're too addicted to feeding their own curiosity with shiny new tech that they've lost any empathy for the rest of the world.
- the sad thing is as a person from a developing country i have developed resistance to these diseases but unfortunately we cannot say the same for everyone in developed countries
I would love to see the bloodsucker types selectively wiped out. But acting like this isn't a huge potential fuck up if done wrong is foolish. Im not sure I trust anyone with the power to do this to do it carefully and right at the moment. At the end of the day an egg head politician will be doing the approval and they are never interested or educated enough for scenarios like this.
> We have new ways to wipe out mosquito-borne diseases with minimal environmental cost.
Am I the only one who finds the hubris in this sentence chilling? Surely there's absolutely no way that we can be sure of the impact on the ecosystem of eradicating an entire species? And more so, surely we just can't be that confident of something like that when we have so little understanding of the complexities of most ecosystems mosquitos exist in.
The article has a tone of "we can't we wipe out mosquitos as fast as we should because of all this regulation slowing us down", but I can't help feel that's a good thing.
Even if it is somehow true that mosquitos don't play an important part in any ecosystems, surely it's a good thing that the mechanisms for wiping out an entire species are highly regulated, and can only be used if there's an extremely high bar of certainty.
We should know from global warming, that the cost of accidentally messing with nature systems can be really high, and we should tread carefully.
Edit: I know this is hacker news, and a lot of people are likely to be annoyed that I'm advocating for slowing down bio-tech developments. But I really think "care" is such an under-appreciated asset these days.
> We should know from global warming, that the cost of accidentally messing with nature systems can be really high, and we should tread carefully.
My parents continue to insist climate change is just a natural process that humans could never influence in the macro.
Large segments of the population are raised to ignore the evidence right in front of them. They are also taught it's important to vote according to their fantasy-based worldview. They boast in their stubbornness to resist what they see and hear to follow higher powers they feel in their 'hearts'.
God gave us a planet to steward. That only makes sense if he also gave us a world that could be stewarded. The idea that we can’t affect our world is ignoring the responsibility placed on us.
Stewardship as god intended is not littering, having kids, subduing nature, and bending the culture towards 1500 BCE ideas of righteousness. Major natural disasters and climate changes are all a natural consequence of humanity's disobedience from god's perfect plan.
The impact would be saving the lives of thousands of people in the short term and millions of people in the long term.
Even if it is somehow true that mosquitoes play an important part of some ecosystems, to me, it's worth the ecological damage to save the lives of millions of men, women and children in the future and prevent the suffering millions more.
Call me crazy if you want.
I think you've missed the point, which is that a system that cares at all about mass human suffering should be literally racing to rapidly aggregate results of small scale experiments to build the confidence needed to do larger ones, and the system is not currently doing that.
We know that the current ongoing cost of mosquito-borne disease is hundreds of millions of people being debilitated and hundreds of thousands of torturous deaths every year.
It's definitely possibly I have. I agree completely with you in terms of carrying out small experiments to cautiously move towards irradiating something harmful.
But when I look back to the article, I don't see that, I see:
> with minimal environmental cost.
Stated with absolute certainty. No need for experimentation, no need to proceed with caution just "its fine, get on board or you're part of the problem".
I can't tell what the writer is really thinking, and it's definitely possible I'm projecting behaviours I see elsewhere onto the article.
Either way, I really do think, now we have these kind of capabilities, we need to improve our understanding and caution using them, or else the side effects will risk being significantly worse than the positives.
> No need for experimentation
Well, first, the post alludes that a number of experiments have been done already. Singapore is given as a relatively large example.
https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/researc...
But that's not really the important thing about the post. The important part is that it takes 15 years of systemic confusion for companies to even get to the point of being allowed to do the small trials to try to answer the question of ecological impact.
> Am I the only one who finds the hubris in this sentence chilling? Surely there's absolutely no way that we can be sure of the impact on the ecosystem of eradicating an entire species? And more so, surely we just can't be that confident of something like that when we have so little understanding of the complexities of most ecosystems mosquitos exist in.
I agree with you. But most people here care more about their convenience and have the money to offset the problems caused by what humans are doing, so they don't care at all. They're too addicted to feeding their own curiosity with shiny new tech that they've lost any empathy for the rest of the world.
I agree with the GP comment, but your framing of this as “convenience” mininizes the possible gains.
Malaria still kills 600,000 people a year. A person who loses their child to malaria is not “inconvenienced”.
Active discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49956290
- the sad thing is as a person from a developing country i have developed resistance to these diseases but unfortunately we cannot say the same for everyone in developed countries
1. I am Legend opening 2. Spock bit
... both are luddite in nature one can sandbox a and b and observe what's up cool article I myself don't like the fuckers.
I would love to see the bloodsucker types selectively wiped out. But acting like this isn't a huge potential fuck up if done wrong is foolish. Im not sure I trust anyone with the power to do this to do it carefully and right at the moment. At the end of the day an egg head politician will be doing the approval and they are never interested or educated enough for scenarios like this.