It’s nuanced because it could reduce suffering overall, but it could also disrupt ecosystems in ways we can’t predict and cause even more suffering. I think the latter is more likely.
People have a tendency to paint animals they don’t like as insignificant to the ecosystem, but they’re nearly always incorrect. Wasps, for instance, are important pollinators, even if they do sting, and mosquitoes are an important food source, even if they are deadly. Anyone who advocates for eradicating species like these is doing so through a biased lens. We are nowhere near the point, technologically or scientifically, that we’d be safe playing god with the natural world like this – especially not with the massive damage we’ve already caused to the environment. Someday? Maybe. But not right now.
I do also find it horrific to forcibly alter a mosquito’s body so she can’t express her natural behaviors. After all – mosquitoes may cause harm, but they lack the capacity for moral reasoning, and thus cannot be evil. Thus, they don’t “deserve” any kind of torment. But my personal discomfort with this isn’t a moral argument.
Though it didn’t “crash” any ecosystems, DDT still accumulates in the environment, where it remains for a long time and causes ongoing harm to insects and the animals that prey on them. Though the most problematic use of DDT by far is in agriculture, its use against mosquitoes isn’t exactly without issue. Not to mention, mosquito populations can become resistant to DDT, requiring more of it to achieve the same effect.
I wouldn’t say that nothing bad happened. America – particularly urban areas where anti-mosquito measures have been implemented – has been dealing with declines of important populations of birds and insects, and we don’t fully understand the exact causes. Which is to say, we don’t know what role mosquito population reduction has played in this.
We have vaccines against mosquito-borne illnesseses, which I believe are preferable to eradicating a species and the potentially devastating consequences we could encounter.
I would argue that habitat destruction, the introduction of hypercarivores, and chemical spraying would have a much larger effect on bird and insect populations around urban areas than a reduction in mosquitoes, but I’ll admit that I haven’t done any research (primary or secondary) on the topic.
My point was that a genetic attack vector would have far less side-effects than DDT, and pointing out the flaws of DDT does nothing to criticize attacking mosquitoes genetically.
Didn’t seem to doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen, it can be difficult to quantify. Most people don’t notice a lot of the constant large scale ecological devastation that does happen.
The real concern is that even if it was fine in one location, that can’t reliably be assumed to be the case for other ecosystems. This issue is really complicated, we’ve acted hastily in the past and done some insane lasting damage so I’d say it’s best to be careful.
All that said, even if I’m vegan and this whole thing makes me extremely uncomfortable, working to eradicate malaria is objectively good.
It’s nuanced because it could reduce suffering overall, but it could also disrupt ecosystems in ways we can’t predict and cause even more suffering. I think the latter is more likely. People have a tendency to paint animals they don’t like as insignificant to the ecosystem, but they’re nearly always incorrect. Wasps, for instance, are important pollinators, even if they do sting, and mosquitoes are an important food source, even if they are deadly. Anyone who advocates for eradicating species like these is doing so through a biased lens. We are nowhere near the point, technologically or scientifically, that we’d be safe playing god with the natural world like this – especially not with the massive damage we’ve already caused to the environment. Someday? Maybe. But not right now.
I do also find it horrific to forcibly alter a mosquito’s body so she can’t express her natural behaviors. After all – mosquitoes may cause harm, but they lack the capacity for moral reasoning, and thus cannot be evil. Thus, they don’t “deserve” any kind of torment. But my personal discomfort with this isn’t a moral argument.
So, uh, that’s my take on it as a vegan.
I’d argue that we can predict ecosystem effects. In America we annihilated malaria hot spots with DDT. Didn’t seem to crash any ecosystems.
Though it didn’t “crash” any ecosystems, DDT still accumulates in the environment, where it remains for a long time and causes ongoing harm to insects and the animals that prey on them. Though the most problematic use of DDT by far is in agriculture, its use against mosquitoes isn’t exactly without issue. Not to mention, mosquito populations can become resistant to DDT, requiring more of it to achieve the same effect.
The whole point is that DDT caused a mosquito crash and nothing bad happened. If we can crash mosquitoes without DDT, it would be better for everyone.
I wouldn’t say that nothing bad happened. America – particularly urban areas where anti-mosquito measures have been implemented – has been dealing with declines of important populations of birds and insects, and we don’t fully understand the exact causes. Which is to say, we don’t know what role mosquito population reduction has played in this. We have vaccines against mosquito-borne illnesseses, which I believe are preferable to eradicating a species and the potentially devastating consequences we could encounter.
I would argue that habitat destruction, the introduction of hypercarivores, and chemical spraying would have a much larger effect on bird and insect populations around urban areas than a reduction in mosquitoes, but I’ll admit that I haven’t done any research (primary or secondary) on the topic.
My point was that a genetic attack vector would have far less side-effects than DDT, and pointing out the flaws of DDT does nothing to criticize attacking mosquitoes genetically.
That’s true. Criticizing DDT was off-track.
Didn’t seem to doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t happen, it can be difficult to quantify. Most people don’t notice a lot of the constant large scale ecological devastation that does happen.
The real concern is that even if it was fine in one location, that can’t reliably be assumed to be the case for other ecosystems. This issue is really complicated, we’ve acted hastily in the past and done some insane lasting damage so I’d say it’s best to be careful.
All that said, even if I’m vegan and this whole thing makes me extremely uncomfortable, working to eradicate malaria is objectively good.