|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Nov 28, 2011 7:44:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Nov 28, 2011 13:29:37 GMT -5
Now what will dragonflys eat?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Nov 28, 2011 17:21:53 GMT -5
That's been a means of combating malaria for quite a while now.
Edit: But not with male offspring surviving. That's new... oh, wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 28, 2011 17:25:27 GMT -5
inb4 GMO conspiracy
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 28, 2011 18:07:40 GMT -5
Now what will dragonflys eat? Whatever they damn well please, besides this mosquito was an invasive species so there isn't really an ecological dilemma. You are entirely too late for that, read page 4. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 2, 2011 14:53:07 GMT -5
Eh, mosquitoes fulfill no positive ecological role and spread all kinds of diseases, including malaria which has killed more people than anything else in human history. No big loss as far as I'm concerned, and I say this as a person who is usually for more biodiversity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 2, 2011 15:45:41 GMT -5
Mosquitoes do fulfill a role, their larva eat phytoplankton and they are eaten by young fish in turn. And by ingesting blood they move nutrients from the top of food web back towards the bottom of it. Don't dismiss a niche is unimportant because you don't like it. Ecology is fucking complicated (last time I checked you have no training in a biological science or an environmental science) and removing or adding an element will always have unforeseen consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 2, 2011 16:22:57 GMT -5
So I retract my statement. (But how the fuck are tropical countries going to battle malaria if we can't let the mosquito fall extinct?) In any case, let's hope that this "Wipeout Gene" doesn't spread to other species.
|
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 2, 2011 17:39:16 GMT -5
Malaria is now easily treatable. Also some people are naturally immune to Malaria by having Sickle Cell Anemia, or have Sickle Cell Trait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy on Dec 2, 2011 17:52:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 2, 2011 17:59:59 GMT -5
True, but overall it's still an easily treatable disease.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 2, 2011 18:58:52 GMT -5
The astute here will notice I was arguing against him saying "mosquitoes fulfill no positive ecological role" by pointing out their ecological role. It could still follow that their role is minor enough and the harm from the diseases they carry great enough to justify eliminating them in at least some places.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Dec 2, 2011 20:11:01 GMT -5
Malaria? The article's about dengue fever:
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Dec 2, 2011 20:21:57 GMT -5
The astute here will notice I was arguing against him saying "mosquitoes fulfill no positive ecological role" by pointing out their ecological role. It could still follow that their role is minor enough and the harm from the diseases they carry great enough to justify eliminating them in at least some places. I'm not one to tute my own as, but I noticed it. I do think that mosquitos should be a target for careful elimination, though. |
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 2, 2011 20:24:34 GMT -5
The astute here will notice I was arguing against him saying "mosquitoes fulfill no positive ecological role" by pointing out their ecological role. It could still follow that their role is minor enough and the harm from the diseases they carry great enough to justify eliminating them in at least some places. Possibly, but I'm not sure eliminating a species is the best way to prevent a disease they carry. Especially with a preventable and treatable disease. On the other hand, it might be easier to kill mosquitoes than get pharmaceutical companies to help more than they are. |
|
