Yes, this. What other buggy will arise to take the space vacated by the skeeters? How will bats and such get enough to eat?
Also, I’m coming at this from America, not Africa or other places where mosquitoes wreak havoc on communities.
I have a luxury based opinion that other places not so fortunate cannot afford
It’s certainly not a decision to take lightly, but more for reasons of risk assessment rather than ethics.
Environmental questions are only questions of ethics insofar as they affect other sentient beings. Air and water don’t have thoughts and feelings – it’s people who care whether they are polluted or not – and similarly, most of us would agree that mosquitoes are not people whose civilisation deserves equal consideration to our own. (Hurting other creatures is a different matter, but that’s not relevant here unless we’re concerned about mosquitoes suffering the unfulfilled ache of spinsterhood, which is a stretch).
If there is something that humans can do which will make the world more amenable to humans, then there is no viewpoint from which to say it is wrong. Unless you are thinking that it will displease God or tree spirits or what have you (granted, a lot of people do think that without realising / admitting it).
You still have to be careful not to privilege one set of human interests over another. For instance, cutting down rainforests has consequences for the whole population, over generational timescales, in incompletely-enumerated ways. When we call that a crime against “the environment”, that’s valid in the sense that “the environment” is shorthand for “the interests of humans in very broad statistical terms”. But it’s not valid in the sense that “the environment” is literally a mystical being that can be harmed even in the absence of a human narrator.
The distinction matters because sometimes it is possible to have a pretty good idea of the full ramifications of a particular intervention, and when it’s a life-and-death thing, it’s worth trying. If you tell me I shouldn’t use plastic straws based on vague “leave nothing but footprints” sentiment, that shorthand argument is good enough considering the low stakes. But if you say I might have to die of malaria so mosquitoes can live, you’re going to have to get into much more detail.
That ‘mainly’ is doing an awful lot of work there. Without it, you present an excuse to kill off basically everything. With it, we shouldn’t kill off anything.
I don’t have much faith that we humans won’t just end up making shit worse…
I’m not sure we have the right to do this. The ethics are muddled at best. Do mosquitos have an innate right to existence? Will other animals suffer? How much human suffering would it prevent? It’s like a massive trolley problem.
At the very least we must make sure there are other mosquito species ready to take up the slack when anopheles are gone. Otherwise we would risk a complete ecosystem crash when we remove a major food source for a host of other animals.
Mosquitos prey on plenty of things other than humans. Do we have to be the main prey? If so, why?
Also, if said species DOES prey mainly on humans … how about we just move aside and leave them to their ecosystem? We want to go everywhere, but we don’t have to.
Too bad if the trait manages to jump to other species. We (meaning “somebody”) should select a panel of volunteer judges composed of mosquito extinction advocates who will take credit or blame for the result. The deal is: if the experiment works, they each get a million dollars, but if it fails the money and any interest is forfeited and they are executed.
While “Should we” is a very interesting question, I think we have a couple, much more useful questions, namely:
The underlying problem is:
A thoughtful piece, and I appreciate how the author laid out the arguments.
But there is a big missing piece from both the pro and anti arguments.
Manufactured gene drives are not likely to make any species extinct, and certainly not one with the global range of Anopheles. They may extinguish local populations of mosquitoes, although that has not been proven outside the very favorable conditions of a lab. The fact is that these modified mosquitoes are likely to be poor mates, or in entomology speak, have “high fitness costs.” They just aren’t likely to succeed in a fair fight with constantly replenishing populations of wild mosquitoes.
So in fact, if not theory, promises of extinction are mostly hype. And worries about extinction are equally so. I wish we’d have some scientists on here discuss these realities, because hype seems to be the go-to position for pro and anti- GM folks.
Here then is a more interesting question: What would a GM mosquito look like as part of a broader spectrum of anti-malarial efforts, from wetland drainage to pesticides to larvicides to bed nets? Will they make any difference–or a big difference? Maybe in some places but not others? Who will be able to afford them? Those are also questions with interesting, but less sexy, ethical aspects.
Imo the ethics of wiping our a mosquito species are: F&*! Mosquitos.
Are we responsible for that species is another question. Examples:
Carp. Invasive in many countries. Especially where I am. Out-compete native species and cause massive issues.
How about Cane-Toads (Guessed my country yet)?
Foxes?
Rats?
Mice?
Cats (Feral cats specifically)?
Rabbits?
All these animals destroy our biodiversity and have also been responsible for driving species to extinction.
Do we target these animals? Some of them are cute and fluffy and we call friends. But they are also environmental disasters!
Ethics is a scary area and why we need to be so careful about saying “Kill all mosquitos!”
(Caveat: This is my 2c. I’m adding it as topic of discussion)
You make it sound like mosquitos are only a problem in places we can easily avoid. Don’t think it’s that easy. Unless you want humankind to abandon much of the best human habitat on the planet. My impression is that Anopheles are tropical species.
So you’re thinking that gene drives might be better for reducing the population rather than extinguishing it? That might be more palatable to most people. Probably still has some unforeseen consequences though.
Just FTR, parasite pressure might be a strong driver of some evolutionary developments, and of course of population dynamics of affected taxa. This, their removal might also have unintended effects.
I’m not arguing against it, mind, but I argue caution even there…
It’s important to realise that there a thousands or species of mosquitoes and only a few dozen of them spread Malaria and all the other fun diseases. This suggests targeting just one of those species, mosquitoes at large are not going anywhere soon.
I don’t believe in the “unintended consequences” narrative. I think that has been drilled into us by every monkey-fist / genie-in-a-bottle / swallow-a-spider story for as long as we have been telling stories, so it feels true but there is no evidence this has to happen. I don’t believe for one bit that ecosystems and evolution are that fragile. Remove one species of mosquito and other species will fill the gap, no bats and birds will have to go hungry.
I even think removing all species of mosquito will not have all that many unintended consequences, but there I will concede the idea to wishful thinking, the risks for it are just too high and the reward of getting rid of the annoyance of being bitten, is just not worth it.
For eliminating Malaria, I think it’s our moral obligation to give it our best shot, and this seems to be that shot.
“Narrative”?
“Believe”?
“Ecosystems not that fragile”?
Mate, you probably need to check back with the concepts of science, facts, and reality. Assuming you live on the North American continent, you are living in a heavily modified environment with shitloads of examples of unintended consequences introducing and removing species from ecosystems brought forth.
shakes head sadly
Just because the US banned DDT and didn’t loose thwit bald-headed eagles doesn’t mean everything is hunky dory, you know.
Go on, ridicule cautionary approaches. However, I have the feeling that the principle that the liability lies with the party responsible for a possible damage is going to be contentious after things turn pear-shaped…
I live in Europe and I agree, we change stuff all the time, intentional or not.
I don’t see the downside in this case, the worst case scenario I hear from people is that there will be less food for animals that eat the mosquitoes. I don’t buy that, if one species goes away that will leave space that will quickly and easily be filled by other mosquitoes. Ecosystems are good at filling those holes.
I think we need to be really careful in doing this. But considering the potential good this intervention can do I think we need to be even more careful we don’t let a unfounded fear of genetic alterations stop us from ridding the world of one of the biggest killers it’s got.
I agree in principle, of course. However, “unfounded fear” is a difficult term in regard to a novel technique. I’ve heard both sides, and both play with words and emotional blackmail. It’s a mess.
ETA: without proper research, I can’t sum up all possible downsides.
Disturbed food chains are but one example, and I wouldn’t dismiss this when doing risk assessment. However, from my limited knowledge, you do have a point there: food chains might rebound flexibly. Other effects might be primary (e.g. pollination services - and yes, some species of mosquito are pollinators) or secondary (e.g. competitive exclusions). We can’t do research on everything, of course. But we have to figure out possible scenarios and rule them out as good as we can based on expert knowledge and at least some research.
What’s really, really interesting however is if this technique is really containable. As an ecologist, I have only a basic understanding of the genetics involved, but more than your average person who is either fundamentally against genetic engineering or enthusiastic about it. I know it’s usually more complicated than you would expect. And we need to be really, really sure about this. Cautionary principle. Liability. Non-retreivable deployment.
I don’t buy into any scare, but I want rigour. Extreme rigour.
