We were well on our way to getting rid of mosquitoes, incidentally, until we banned DDT. Millions of dead humans are the very real consequence of that decision.
The idea that there exists a worldwide ban on DDT for vector control, and that out-of-control malaria and "millions of dead humans" were the "real consequence" is a complete fantasy. And a rather disgusting one, as well.
However, many mosquito species are becoming resistant to DDT, so it is not really useful any longer. For example, India has greatly reduced the use of DDT because most of its malaria bearing mosquitoes are resistant to it.
DDT kills mosqito predators too and the mosquito predators are usually bigger more complex creatures with longer lifespans so it is much harder for them to evolve a resistance to DDT. Thus the idea that you could wipe out mosquitoes with DDT is ridiculous. Mosquitoes just evolve resistances to it. However, you could wipe out many bird species with it.
Here is a good fact sheet on the issue:
http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/documents/work%20documents/ddt_i...
Not that I want to endanger bald eagles either, but I'd be interested to see a less politically-charged, more pragmatic debate on the potential advantages and disadvantages of reinstating its use in limited capacities.
Just wondering.
I get bad reaction to sandflies. If sandflies replaced mosquitoes, my world would be severely negatively impacted.
Something feels very wrong here. I can imagine a creature that promotes small amounts of blood sharing between different humans or creatures has positive as well as negative effects - and by definition we don't know what unknown benefits it has.
So let's kill malaria instead. How can we do that?
Life on earth doesn't stay still. Some will evolve, and some will go out extinct, and there will be a few mass extinction event there and there.
There are always consequences of everything- hell, it's one of Newton's laws. But it's entirely possible there are no terrible awful consequences.
Edit: And a different take on the 'No' conclusion from the original link. Turns out 'Yes, in these situations, though maybe not and does that matter?' is the more accurate analysis of 3500 responses.
I'm well aware that malaria and other diseases carried by mosquitoes are a very large killer in parts of the world but why aren't we trying to cure these diseases rather than wipe out a whole species?
It just seems as if we, as a species, think we rule this planet so can do whatever we want with regard to the other species that exist on it.
Isn't collateral damage the entire problem with removing things from complex systems?
I seem to remember that back in the days of DDT, mosquitos were killed back to the point where malaria was no longer a big deal. Then the 70's happened, DDT went away, mosquitos and malaria came back big time, and farmers in Southeast Asia started dying in large numbers because the insecticides they used to replace DDT were actually harmful right now instead of 'probably carcinogenic over 20 years'.
Anybody know what the insecticide of choice is today, and whether it's as safe as (or safer than) DDT?
But hell, who doesn't like a good a good genocide?
