How is the beauty of the insect or the way it cares about its eggs relevant to whether or not it should be eradicated?
> Must we also evict the magnificently iridescent mosquitoes whose larvae prey on dangerous species, or the ones that pollinate flowers at night, or the single species known to risk its life to protect its eggs from harm?
It’s nice and poetic. These thoughts will leave any non modern human in peril in the savanna or most wildernesses because nature doesn’t care and can be utterly violent.
I would call this attitude the privilege of modernity that disconnects people from immediate danger affording them these mental exercises that would in another time imperil them.
The beauty of most species is entirely relevant to whether or not it should be eradicated.
Conservation biologists and botanists recognize that beauty and, more generally, charisma are what gets the public's attention when the former seek help for their conservation efforts. As such, you'll often see the most charismatic species--pandas, whales, and seals, for example--on conservation brochures. People only ever open their wallets to support conservation efforts if they see pictures of charismatic species.
This is not just a marketing ploy. The public really only cares when charismatic species are threatened with extinction. A midwestern grass or an ugly insect? Not so much.
So the beauty of the insect or the way it cares about its eggs is entirely relevant in the public opinion, which in turn determines public policy, to whether or not it should be eradicated.
I just want to point out that I've never heard anyone call for the eradication of mosquitoes that don't spread disease in humans, a major premise of the article.
I would admit that I didn’t really know much about the existence of mosquitoes that didn’t pose a threat to humans so I think it’s an important article as these species may not be targeted specifically but might become collateral damage if indiscriminate eradication methods are used. I guess in that sense I hope technologies like GM mosquitoes would allow us to eradicate the species that do pose a threat while protecting the ones that may be beneficial.
I’ll agree with that sentiment. But I think a lot of times at least in certain towns in Massachusetts when certain bad mosquito diseases show up (eee) they start spraying and some towns cancel outdoor activities at dusk.
I’m not sure how many non biting mosquitos species are here though but I suspect their control methods are pretty broad. I suspect if they weren’t biting us we wouldn’t notice them.
Mosquito genetics is increasing so generic targeting seems possible. Between that and vaccines..
But why stop there, if it is even possible to? Hundreds or thousands of species of mosquito, can you genetically target a single one for eradication? And if successful, it's easy to imagine the nuances of different species getting lost in government policies. Compounded by the fact that, maybe aegypti and malaria mosquitos represent an equilibrium that, if disturbed by their genocide...would leave a pathogen-vector vacuum that could be filled by a formerly regressive species that could spread worse pathogens. I think we should play with treatments that affect things that have less moving parts and that we roughly know how to control (like our own bodies, roughly), rather than trying to do 'ecosystem' engineering where we have very little knowledge (or it seems critical caution, from proponents) of how it will be affected in a knock-on sense, which could be disastrous.
Maybe it is a good idea but the consequences of it going wrong are disastrous. Like the Cane Toads that were introduced to Australia to wipe out an insect preying on sugar cane, that then became an endemic threat. But we're not talking about it just affecting flora and fauna, we're talking about something that could affect us. The cure might end up being worse than the disease.
Apart from the equilibrium dynamics, vampiric mosquitos also play a role in horizontal gene transfer and end up actually conveying immunity to the human population for various zoonotic pathogens that would otherwise spread to us: they help our immune systems evolve, and also contribute to evolution of humans.
We are already wiping out in the order of a species a day, usually in an unplanned, "oops" fashion: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/p.... Killing a few more in a planned, methodical fashion after having evaluated their use and harm won't make a lot of difference. Any big "disturbance of the ecosystems" is either already occuring or will fix itself over time. I think the risks are minimal, because we are still alive after all the damage we did already.
No I think the difference is that they directly integrate with humans so much. Particularly with the human immune system, pathogen vectors and genetics. Because they suck our blood. It's a pretty unique parasitic relationship--and often the fate of species, both animal and plant, can turn on their parasitic relationships. Perhaps we are not paying the humble mosquito the dues we naturally owe it?
If we press that lever, we might not be able to undo it, and the consequences might be far worse than we (in our limited individual understandings and imaginations, which seem to become even more limited when elaborated through the rubric of public policy) can right now possibly imagine. Sure, it sounds like fear-mongering, and it might be...if they really are useless. But are we so sure? Is it worth it to take that risk?
Consider that air pollution kills ten times (10!) as many as mosquitos. Well, we should just eradicate all fossil fuels. Wipe them from the face of the Earth. But of course, we will not--why? because we see how integrated these disease producing fossil fuels are into our modern energy and supply chains. We see their utility in the 'gross anatomy' of our industrialized civilization clearly. But I think it is not widely appreciated the utility of the mosquito in the much more subtle, but more complex and numerous subtle anatomy of the networks of our ecological and bodily systems. Eradicating them is worse than (the incredibly horrid and stupid hypothetical idea of) say wiping out all gut bacteria in terms of damage, potentially. Anyone who seems eager to take that risk and has the gall to affect society like that with grand statements of "wipe them all out"-- I think is crazy and dangerous. The risk is too great.
Let's find ways to cure/combat the illnesses that don't involve taking out a key transport system in the global biome. It's like saying because crazy people can send letter bombs and con-persons can send fraud, we must execute all postal employees and dismantle all courier companies, if they've ever been misused. Because the internet can carry viruses to your computer, we must sever all submarine cables, and tear down all cell towers. It's sort of a sickness, an overgrowth of desire to use the clever technical genetic tools we can develop to watch as we humans hold the fate of a whole race of things in our hands. Let's use those clever genetic tricks to fight disease not bring the entire infrastructure down, in a fit of intoxication with our own self-importance, finger on the button of destruction, in a rapture of obsession with our very human world-conquering mania.
Mm, I agree there's overlap. But not total. Vaccines are effective tools, but we can't replicate the natural ecosystem and exposure to it, not yet anyway. I agree that vaccines are the closest tech we have to doing this...but they won't replace mozzies.
If we get rid of mozzies we will then need to adopt responsibility for the role the mosquito played, and we might not be able to do that, and even if we can our solutions might cause other problems. It's sort of like saying, "fertilizer can replicate the role of funghi for plants, because fertilizer brings nutrients to plants". So if we decided to get rid of all funghi from the soil (crazy plan), we can just replace it with fertilizer. Problem solved. But not really...This is a metaphor (about the risk and difficulty of replicating a natural system we decide to remove from the ecosystem) not meant to be facsimile.
Look it probably doesn't matter if they only kill aegypti (but it might, it still might be a disaster). I just think it's dangerous to play with that kind of stuff. Let's remove the pathogen, not the vector.
Add some birdfeeders around your house, and if swallows start to build their nests on your home, let them. I live next to wetlands, but the birds eat the bugs. Swallows specifically eat over 10,000 mosquitoes a day, so if you get them established on your property, it makes a huge difference.
Of all the natural predators mentioned above, only dragonflies make a real difference. It's night and day in the same area depending on whether there's a healthy population of dragonflies nearby.
Deet? Tiger mosquitoes in my home region don't care about it, I sprayed heavily my shoes and legs with Deet based repellent and within 5min, I had these fuckers trying to bite through my shoes! And I could see them feeding on mint flowers as well.
Try 3M Ultrathon. Or go 100% DEET if you haven't tried it already.
I'll take the inevitable "oops, DEET causes horrible cancer" news report in the future for clouds of Asian Tiger mosquitoes surrounding but not landing on me, please.
Haha, this is quite funny. I feel you must live in Florida, but I have no idea. First time to hear about these Noseeums, how are their bites compared to mosquito?
Noseeums, as someone else said, are near invisible. They leave rashes, suck blood, can transmit disease.
The ones here (there are countless species) leave rashes which take weeks to go away.
If you've ever been bit by a deer fly, it's the same thing, except these are super tiny. They literally use their jaws to slice a hole in your skin, and suck the blood up.
They also love to suck water and salt from your eyes, so they land, but often get stuck and die because of you blinking. Then you end up with all these dead insects in your eyes.
They love to fly in your ear, I imagine ear wax and the moistness attracts. They bite there too.
So now you have rashes inside your ear canal, and insect crawling in there.
In spring, they attack in droves. Hundreds or even thousands buzzing around your head.
If you stand outside my house, in the spring, just stand still and stare ahead, within minutes they appear, and you are soon sightless for the sheer number of dead in your eyes.
They need to be exterminated.
I love birds more than most, but if 1/2 the bird species die, I'm ok with that, as long as noseeums do too.
I've encountered unbearable mosquito scenarios in Florida, but also Colorado, Asia, Australia, etc. Recently in Broome, Western Australia, a brisk walk wouldn't stop them from biting through clothes - my legs were riddled with bites and my scalp was covered with their bodies and my blood. That was on par with the Everglades in Florida. Horrific.
But noseeums (biting midge or sand fly in Australia) are possibly worse. You don't see, hear or really feel them biting you, but then later the itch endures for a couple of weeks afterwards. Last couple of times, I thought often that having my skin surgically removed would be preferable to another week of the itching.
In some parts of the world, the suffering that you describe already lasts 9+ months of the year. Mosquito swarms literally eat you alive while outside.
Then, maybe, you are living in a place where nobody should have lived in the first place. Population in areas that are not really suited for us is a more widespread problem than we like to admit.
Through a number of months each year at my house, shaded gardening at almost any time of the day, or sitting outside for a drink with friends in the afternoon, is a constant battle with mosquitoes. It's a largely dry and urban area but all it takes is a neighbour with an uncovered watertank or still pond and it is quickly frustrating. It's not tropical or swampy. No lakes. Barely have creeks. And Aboriginal populations were here long before settlers arrived centuries ago to displace them.
Find and grow the right plants (they cant stand the smell of quite a few). I cant remember the names but I remember my grandmom used to grow a specific bunch around sitout areas and windows. If that doesnt work try incense.
Looked up the plants people typically mention and we already have those. We often use mosquito coils/incense. Helps slightly but isn't practical if you're just gardening in a shaded area and mosquitoes hassle you constantly. Still, could be worse - could have biting midges in my garden.
Then almost no humans should be alive anywhere. Almost all river valleys are former swamps, laid dry somewhere between antiquity and now to be habitable and arable. Rome was a swamp dried out by the cloaca maxima, among other reasons to get rid of the mosquito plague and associated diseases.
We have made land habitable for millenia, you are arguing for a return to stoneage levels of settlement.
I admit to exaggeration. Humans shoehorning themselves into environments first and then trying to change that environment is just a pet peeve of mine.
Draining swamps, irrigating the desert, damming rivers, reclaiming land from the sea or cutting down forests are bad enough but advocating to wipe out a species is a whole another level imo.
Erm. Parasites which feed upon humans, were with us as we evolved.
Mosquitoes, noseeums have been with us from the start! If you live in a place without them, you are living where humans shouldn't, for mosquitoes thrive in environments where humans thrive.
>Mosquito-eating vampire spider could be recruited for war on malaria
>Cross says that these arachnids, also known as vampire spiders, “love” feeding on human blood as it gives them an odour that renders them sexually attractive to potential mates.
>But the spiders pose no danger to humans, the researchers say. Even though they like human blood, they lack specialised mouth parts to pierce people’s skin. Instead, to get the nutritious blood meal, the spiders feed on the female mosquitoes that carry blood sucked from humans. “Their compound eyes give them clear eyesight. And just like a cat, they stalk their prey and pounce on them at the right moment,” she says. The study, published in the current issue of the Journal of Arachnology, says that the spiders identify female Anopheles mosquitoes through their up-tilted abdomens — a resting posture they adopt after feeding on human blood.
>To study vampire spiders, build Frankenstein mosquitoes
>They confronted captive spiders with lures built from body parts of dead mosquitoes, which had been glued together in different combinations like miniature Frankenstein’s monsters. The spiders saw two lures at a time, and Nelson noted which they pounced upon. “They are easy-to-handle, patient spiders,” she says. “Being so picky, it means we can ask them questions and get answers regarding their preferences that makes it seem like they answered in English.”
>Evarcha culicivora is a species of jumping spider (family Salticidae) found only around Lake Victoria in Kenya and Uganda.[1] At maturity, E. culicivora spiders have an average size of 5 mm for both males and females. The range in size for either sex is quite small, with females being only slightly larger on average (4-7 mm compared to 3-6 mm).[2]
>It is commonly known as the vampire spider because it indirectly desires the blood of vertebrates. It does this by predating on blood-sucking female mosquitoes in the genus Anopheles, the mosquito responsible for transmitting malaria in the region, as well as other vector-borne diseases in humans.[1] Experimentally, these spiders are considered Anopheles specialists.[3] E. culicivora has an association with the native plants Lantana camara and Ricinus communis. They consume the nectar for food and preferentially use these plants as a location for courtship.[4]
Yeah, right. Instead of just getting rid of the moskitos, let's introduce a spider that likes human blood, but is currently unable to get it directly. No chance for that one to go wrong...
If you don't want to click, the short of it is:
neonatal (12%), malaria (12%), diarrhea (11%), lower respiratory infection (11%), HIV/AIDS (5%), heart disease (4.4%)
Your claim that it is always the #1 killer is disproven. Are there poor countries where heart disease is #1. For sure. But you shouldn't be sneering at my statement.
You seem to imply that Malaria has killed more humans throughout history than heart disease. Laughably, you do not show any source to back up your statement ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I disagree based on extremely easy to obtain numbers from sources like [1]. Malaria at 200k/year is not even close to Ischaemic heart disease at at about 9M/year. That is an almost 50-fold difference (!). Given that we have experienced an exponential growth in population in the last 100 or so years, I would not be inclined to believe that something in the past has enough weight to shift the numbers in such dramatic way to invert this trend (50 to 1); and that's being VERY generous and assuming that somehow, in the past, for whatever reason, nobody died from heart disease, at all.
If you have a substantial contribution to make please do so and provide data to support your arguments, otherwise, refrain from spreading lies and FUD.
ah, I see the confusion. Heart disease may have killed more, cancer too, but neither of those are animals. The stat easily stands at mosquitoes being the number one deadliest animal to humans of all time.
Without mosquito's, we very likely wouldn't have Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien was suddenly taken from the front lines due to severe mosquito born illness, and the very next day or so his entire battalion was wiped out in an artillery barrage, or something close to that nature.
However, I don't particularly think it can be said that LotR makes up for the history of mosquitoes crimes against humanity...
I seem to be the lone defender of the mosquito and tsetse fly. These insects protect animals and habitats from the most insidious creature on this planet,humans.
These insects don’t protect anything, mosquitos and tsetse flies haven’t been a valid reason to avoid settling an area since the Colombian Exchange. It isn’t difficult to drain a marsh.
Any precious little swamp (where all the wondrous animals within are also being preyed upon by mosquitoes & eg tsetse flies) is still going to be drained if it makes economic sense, and it typically does!
The only place where mosquitoes and tsetse flies protect “habitats” are in the most backwater, poorest, least developed regions of the planet where all the millions of deaths are as well, it figures their lives don’t matter/can be taken advantage of in the name of “nature”.
> Must we also evict the magnificently iridescent mosquitoes whose larvae prey on dangerous species, or the ones that pollinate flowers at night, or the single species known to risk its life to protect its eggs from harm?