Wiping out a species deliberately flies in the face of the philosophy of environmental conservation that we all learned in school and from media. However, we have wiped out organisms that threaten humans before (e.g. smallpox) and are currently in the process of wiping out others, such as polio and the guinea worm, which is a parasite that is ingested in contaminated water only to emerge, slowly and painfully, through the skin (see Dracunculiasis).
In terms of deaths caused, mosquitoes are undoubtedly far deadlier than any species humans have eradicated to date. In North America they are more of a nuisance than a deadly threat, but the same does not hold true for large portions of the world where they are a major disease vector. They are unquestionably worth eradicating if it ever becomes feasible to do so.
The question should not be whether or not we should eliminate the species of mosquitoes that feed on humans. Instead, we should ask how can we minimize the impact of eliminating these species. Can other species of mosquitoes that are not disease vectors, or other insects entirely, fill in the vacated niche? Is it possible to eradicate mosquitoes in test areas to see what the long-term impact is? If we do eradicate them globally, how long would we have to "hit reset" by hatching and releasing stored eggs if unforeseen consequences make it necessary?
I think the obvious big difference between microorganisms like polio or smallpox and insects like mosquitoes is that the microorganisms aren't really part of the food chain, they don't have predator species that rely on them for a food source. Mosquitoes, on the other hand, are food for many other species, birds, bats, other insects, and completely removing them from the environment, removes that food source from those other species. It's possible that the predator species would expand their use of other food sources (possibly, outcompeting other species for those sources), or that they'd continue on in reduced numbers. Or it's possible that removing mosquitoes starts a domino effect, where former predator species go extinct (and their predators do the same or switch food sources), or enter into more intensive competition for other food sources, resulting in competing species either going extinct, finding new food sources (there's the domino effect again), or reducing population numbers.
We've done it with other animals (passenger pigeon) without the world ending, but I smell unintended consequences... Something as ubiquitous as the mosquito is hooked into the ecosystem in a lot of ways.
microorganisms aren't really part of the food chain
That is not strictly speaking true. Microbes in the soil have a lot to do with the healthy/unhealthy growth of many plants. Microbes in our gut have a drastic effects on our ability to digest food. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't have an effect.
I do believe however that the sheer variety speed of mutation in that portion of the food change insulates it from a lot of damage. Perhaps the same could be said for Insects as well I don't know.
>Wiping out a species deliberately flies in the face of the philosophy of environmental conservation that we all learned in school and from media.
Not necessarily. If wiping out a single specie provides enough economic value to save every other specie from their current path to extinction then it is still in the interest of environmental conservation to do so.
Well, the ones who survive would be fine, eventually. In the short term there'd be a horrible Malthusian die-off of those many cattle which were in excess of the post-agricultural carrying capacity, and which had theretofore lived purely as a result of human ingenuity and effort.
It's just possible, I think, that you got downvoted less for whatever reason your apparent dietary persecution complex leads you to imagine, than for seeming not to have thought this point through.
"dietary persecution complex" is cute...
Maybe you didn't think that currently cattle are not "fine" at all. Unless for "fine" you mean enslavement and forced feeding with chemicals, and being alive just to produce meat.
I didn't that not to be downvoted you should express the obvious with style and terms good for a scientific dissertation. Thanks for enlightening me.
The only thing that matters in the context of evolution is passing on genes. In this respect, the genes which code for cattle are incredibly successful, largely due to human interference. It would significantly decrease the success of the species, and while the surviving cattle would be happier the individual's happiness is not relevant to the species' success, so long as breeding continues.
Alternatively, can we nudge evolution in a desirable direction so that the disease spreading capabilities of modern mosquito's are surpassed by a new species that serves the same ecological role without spreading disease?
Impossible. Even if we could nobody knows the full extent of the ecological role of mosquitos. When you are talking about ecology there are too many variables to know them all.
Nature lost species all the time throughout history, and the world survived. I'd say, there are so many variables that the ecosystem can surely adapt to the loss of any particular species.
In terms of deaths caused, mosquitoes are undoubtedly far deadlier than any species humans have eradicated to date. In North America they are more of a nuisance than a deadly threat, but the same does not hold true for large portions of the world where they are a major disease vector. They are unquestionably worth eradicating if it ever becomes feasible to do so.
The question should not be whether or not we should eliminate the species of mosquitoes that feed on humans. Instead, we should ask how can we minimize the impact of eliminating these species. Can other species of mosquitoes that are not disease vectors, or other insects entirely, fill in the vacated niche? Is it possible to eradicate mosquitoes in test areas to see what the long-term impact is? If we do eradicate them globally, how long would we have to "hit reset" by hatching and releasing stored eggs if unforeseen consequences make it necessary?