|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 2, 2011 20:29:42 GMT -5
Eliminating species is the traditional way of removing the threat they pose. We're incredibly good at it by now.
Anyway, I'm not arguing for driving them extinct - I don't know that that's feasible with something like mosquitos anyway - but for fighting their population as best we can in specific areas. Of course, that's probably not practical in a lot of places for the same reason we can't practically get medical treatment in those places.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 2, 2011 22:08:08 GMT -5
Well, if they're invading our ecosystem (not native), I don't see a problem with mass elimination. Their natural ecosystem might not be the best to touch... though if the benefit outweighs the harm, and there's no alternative outside of treating the effects rather than the cause, then it may be for the best. Not just for humans, but for the other wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 6, 2011 12:23:26 GMT -5
Of course, their natual habitat is the tropics, where mosquito-borne diseases are most serious as those countries do not have the resources to treat them.
|
|
|
Post by tgrwulf on Dec 14, 2011 12:13:16 GMT -5
Well, if they're invading our ecosystem (not native), I don't see a problem with mass elimination. Their natural ecosystem might not be the best to touch... though if the benefit outweighs the harm, and there's no alternative outside of treating the effects rather than the cause, then it may be for the best. Not just for humans, but for the other wildlife. This.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 14, 2011 12:42:53 GMT -5
To be fair, there is the threat of horizontal gene transfer, but it's probably low.
|
|