What are the consequences of genetically altering ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes to control their populations?

[eidairaman1]

Does that include vaccines?

I don't want to get political here.

I wasn't getting political

Just make sure it was the native species youre saving - Everything else can be crushed or fed to spiders.

Those Lady beetles stick to hard pallette of dog mouths even.

 

[the54thvoid]

Thread cleaned. Stick to the topic. This is not a covid thread.

 

[Nordic]

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.

Precautionary principle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ferrum Master]

The point relies in the fact we have influenced the ecosystem at such scale already killing species and braking natural balance...

It really does not matter, actually we already do artificial population controls to maintain some specific specie survival there is no other way, you will not bring it back. We have to take part in controlling the environment.

It is just another control tool, as any other. If you use it wisely it will do good, overuse it and it will do harm, like basically anything. We are no specialists, but usually and empty space ain't left, if we kill ticks some other species will take its place, just like crows.

 

[ratirt]

Humans should stop interfering with natural cause of things, thinking they can make it better. Flora and Fauna chain should not be interrupted since that can cause nothing but disasters.
Due to global warming, the insects numbers are increasing every year and that causes problems due to mutation since higher temperatures are present in areas that have never seen those temps. Winters are not as harsh as they were lets say 15 years ago thus not wiping most of them. Wanna fix things with insects and everything else? You need to limit the pollution and prevent global warming to accelerate.

 

[Space Lynx]

Don't think he'd take this subject on. Not his area of experience, though I could be wrong..

I've heard him talk about genetic editing thought experiments before. Not in this context though I admit.

Humans should stop interfering with natural cause of things, thinking they can make it better. Flora and Fauna chain should not be interrupted since that can cause nothing but disasters.
Due to global warming, the insects numbers are increasing every year and that causes problems due to mutation since higher temperatures are present in areas that have never seen those temps. Winters are not as harsh as they were lets say 15 years ago thus not wiping most of them. Wanna fix things with insects and everything else? You need to limit the pollution and prevent global warming to accelerate.

I mean there are some things we literally had to control like wild pigs and deer, because they were getting out of hand and destroying entire ecosystems due to their overpopulation. I also don't think it is natural this many midges/ticks/fleas/mosquitoes exist, its similar story as the deer and wild pigs, we may actually be obligated to control it... I just don't know enough about it.

Justin Bieber’s Reveal Shows Why Lyme Disease Is Often Misdiagnosed

The singer revealed he's received a diagnosis of Lyme disease. He's bringing attention to the condition's persistent symptoms that can affect physical and mental health — even after treatment with antibiotics.

www.healthline.com

I know it seems a bit silly, but this article on Justin Bieber getting lyme disease is fairly interesting. It's important to note some of the stories, how many people get lyme disease, but then just get dismissed by doctors cause the testing simply isn't there for it. Lyme disease is very dangerous and can really mess you up for many years.

I say screw the ticks personally. As @R-T-B mentioned not even frogs eat them, what good are they seriously. I would want to observe if wild birds in forested areas, how much of their diet in a broad sense comes from ticks... if its a small enough number, its probably good for ticks to go, even for the birds due to possibility of disease spreading and viruses through the blood in the ticks.

I doubt we will ever know the full truth of how massive Avian Bird Flu outbreaks begin, but if I were to gamble money, I'd say it has its origins in ticks/mosquitoes/fleas like most other diseases, and our society can't handle millions of chickens and turkeys being culled... which has happened a few times now due to outbreaks.

 

[R-T-B]

Ticks literally will engorge themselves on Deer in clusters where I live and suck all the blood out of them. I shit you not. We end up with mummified deer corpses covered in ticks.

It's not natural at all, and I say screw em.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I say screw em.

I hate those things also... those are one of the rare deadly things where I live.

 

[Space Lynx]

Ticks literally will engorge themselves on Deer in clusters where I live and suck all the blood out of them. I shit you not. We end up with mummified deer corpses covered in ticks.

It's not natural at all, and I say screw em.

You have motivated me, I agree, I say let the engineers do the same to ticks as they are currently doing to mosquitoes, reduce the population as much as possible, fuck'em. I can't enjoy reading a book under a tree these days because there are so many ticks. I'd say eradicate them, not just reduce the population. fuck ticks

 

[Endymio]

Killing off wildlife hasn't often worked out well for the environment

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. In Europe in the Middle Ages, one of the leading causes of death was by bear, wolf, boar or other wild animal attack. And less than 100 years ago, Indian tigers were still killing and eating a thousand people a year -- often small children, snatched directly from their homes. Even smaller animals such as foxes, stoats, weasels, civets, deer -- could indirectly cause death through malnourishment and even starvation through herd predation and crop destruction. Insect infestations were once so feared for their ability to destroy crops that they were considered deadly plagues from God himself.

The entire reason you have plenty of food and free time today to sling a backpack and safely roam through the "nurturing trails of nature" today is because of how much of the original wildlife we've killed.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. In Europe in the Middle Ages, one of the leading causes of death was by bear, wolf, boar or other wild animal attack. And less than 100 years ago, Indian tigers were still killing and eating a thousand people a year -- often small children, snatched directly from their homes. Even smaller animals such as foxes, stoats, weasels, civets, deer -- could indirectly cause death through malnourishment and even starvation through herd predation and crop destruction. Insect infestations were once so feared for their ability to destroy crops that they were considered deadly plagues from God himself.

The entire reason you have plenty of food and free time today to sling a backpack and safely roam through the "nurturing trails of nature" today is because of how much of the original wildlife we've killed.

So , your perspective on win = humans have easier survival due to there being no bears , dyre wolves or big cats anymore, great meanwhile those human things have overpopulated and fu£#@d the world.

Perspective, Get some.

Couldn't be more wrong my arse.

I'm not saying culls can't be necessary, but stating they're only a positive is pure asssssss.

The wild boar and dear wouldn't overpopulate if there predictors still existed , but they were nasty to humans too, so f£#@ em.

 

[Endymio]

So , your perspective on win = humans have easier survival due to there being no bears , dyre wolves or big cats anymore, great meanwhile those human things have overpopulated and fu£#@d the world.

Why do you hate your own species so much? If you think the world is so "f^#d" up, try living as it was a thousand years ago, when "Mother" Nature either froze you, burned you, starved you, or diseased you. Most children died before age ten, and the only way you had any chance of surviving was through back-breaking labor 12 or more hours a day. Altering the environment for mankind's benefit is the entire reason environmentalist today can hop on social media and spew misinformed misanthropic tripe about humanity's effect on the planet.

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm

Several European nations tried that principle when the internal combustion engine was first developed. Some actually attempted to ban it entirely, as being far too dangerous for the common man to possess.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Why do you hate your own species so much? If you think the world is so "f^#d" up, try living as it was a thousand years ago, when "Mother" Nature either froze you, burned you, starved you, or diseased you. Most children died before age ten, and the only way you had any chance of surviving was through back-breaking labor 12 or more hours a day. Altering the environment for mankind's benefit is the entire reason environmentalist today can hop on social media and spew misinformed misanthropic tripe about humanity's effect on the planet.


Several European nations tried that principle when the internal combustion engine was first developed. Some actually attempted to ban it entirely, as being far too dangerous for the common man to possess.

No hate , just wanted to present a alternative perspective.

Plus you said I couldn't be more wrong, I disagree with that, depends on perspective to me , we could just turn the planet into full on human land fuck nature too.

Only chicken and cows allowed , but we won't will we.

Do we need dolphins or orka or horses or dogs, no , should they go in the bin?!.

 

[Endymio]

Do we need dolphins or orka or horses or dogs, no ,

We're not talking about dolphins or dogs, but mosquitos, a creature that causes nearly 250 million cases of malaria a year, and over half a million deaths. Counting all the other diseases that mosquitos spread, and the toll approaches the height of the Covid pandemic -- and it happens year after year after year. By your logic, we shouldn't even be attempting to eliminate the Covid virus either. After all, it's part of nature right? And therefore we shouldn't, as you say, "put it in the bin".

I'd also like to point out that the only reason dogs exist is because man altered the environment, by genetically modifying wolves -- through selective breeding -- into a more useful species.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

We're not talking about dolphins or dogs, but mosquitos, a creature that causes nearly 250 million cases of malaria a year, and over half a million deaths. Counting all the other diseases that mosquitos spread, and the toll approaches the height of the Covid pandemic -- and it happens year after year after year. By your logic, we shouldn't even be attempting to eliminate the Covid virus either. After all, it's part of nature right? And therefore we shouldn't, as you say, "put it in the bin".

I'd also like to point out that the only reason dogs exist is because man altered the environment, by genetically modifying wolves -- through selective breeding -- into a more useful species.

By your logic why are we leaving rat's alone then or cockroaches, where do we stop.

Again though see my earlier posts , I would just like to KNOW that adequate research was done into the chain of effect's.

No offense but by a certified professional group of diverse specialist scientists, not just one or just because some don't like tick's, I mean I also don't like tick's too.

But I don't do absolutes , I can be wrong and I learn every day, I just hope the likes of you and these scientists realise they're in the same boat.

Perspectively intelligent, can still be thick as f£#@ , just oblivious to it.

 

[looniam]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. In Europe in the Middle Ages, one of the leading causes of death was by bear, wolf, boar or other wild animal attack. And less than 100 years ago, Indian tigers were still killing and eating a thousand people a year -- often small children, snatched directly from their homes. Even smaller animals such as foxes, stoats, weasels, civets, deer -- could indirectly cause death through malnourishment and even starvation through herd predation and crop destruction. Insect infestations were once so feared for their ability to destroy crops that they were considered deadly plagues from God himself.

The entire reason you have plenty of food and free time today to sling a backpack and safely roam through the "nurturing trails of nature" today is because of how much of the original wildlife we've killed.

leading cause of death in the middle ages was the (black) plague, so if you want to blame something - that would be fleas with rats being an accomplish. and in the 1930s india did reach a historic average of 1000 death for 3 years but usually avg 200/year.

humans are the master of nothing and needs nature to master them. had a biology prof perfectly explain how humans face more problems the further they expand their habitat/territory, not just with other animals but with the planet itself - acting in defense of an invading organism.

 

[Endymio]

By your logic why are we leaving rat's alone then or cockroaches

We're not. Rats killed nearly 1/3 the population of Europe, through spreading plague-bearing fleas -- not to mention regularly wiping out entire villages when a horde managed to destroy their winter grain supply. Rats were so endemic, in fact, that professional rat-catcher was a common profession in Europe, up until a couple hundred years ago.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

We're not. Rats killed nearly 1/3 the population of Europe, through spreading plague-bearing fleas -- not to mention regularly wiping out entire villages when a horde managed to destroy their winter grain supply. Rats were so endemic, in fact, that professional rat-catcher was a common profession in Europe, up until a couple hundred years ago.

That's nothing like cryspr based genetic genocide though is it.

Also just imagine if those plagues had not happened 7.5 billion could be exponentially higher and in a food crisis.

Human Life is so precious is it , not to everyone (and I don't mean me).

 

[Shrek]

I wasn't getting political

I didn't mean to suggest you were, just that I didn't want to go that route.

Humans should stop interfering with natural cause of things, thinking they can make it better.

While I agree, I am also aware that most of us would not be alive if we had not

• Fertilizers
• Insecticides
• Medicine
• Transportation

 

[bonehead123]

This is an extremely slippery slope. Please consider the following questions:

A) Who gets to decide what genetic alterations/manipulations are ok and which ones are not ? Where do we draw the line ?

B) Should there be any positive outcomes from these alterations (unlikely), who decides which ones are freely shared with all of mankind, or which ones are kept under wraps until some scumbag scientist, organization, or politician figures out how to make money from it, or worse, turn it into a weapon ?

C) What happens when something goes wrong, and how will we hold those responsible for the mistakes accountable.....Prison ? Death ? public tarring & feathering ? And who decides how & when to enforce those penalties ?

D) Who gets to decide how to go about correcting/reversing the mistakes, or even if this would even be feasible without causing more problems ?

This list could be way, way longer, because there are undoubtedly many more questions that need to be addressed, but these should suffice for now

 

[Endymio]

This is an extremely slippery slope.

If you're speaking of the slippery slope of banning technology -- or worse, information itself -- under the guise of "protecting the people", then I agree.

B) Should there be any positive outcomes from these alterations (unlikely), who decides which ones are freely shared with all of mankind....

ROFL, you find it "unlikely" that the field of bio-engineering is "unlikely" to generate any positive outcomes? The field has far more potential than the microchip.

...who decides which ones are freely shared with all of mankind, or which ones are kept under wraps until some scumbag scientist, organization, or politician figures out how to make money from it, or worse, turn it into a weapon ?

Who decided which benefits of electronics and computing technology were "freely shared with all mankind" and which were sold for profit? Who decided -- lets all shudder with horror now -- to allow microchips to be used in weaponry? Should we retroactively ban everything from microchips to transistor radios?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

If you're speaking of the slippery slope of banning technology -- or worse, information itself -- under the guise of "protecting the people", then I agree.


ROFL, you find it "unlikely" that the field of bio-engineering is "unlikely" to generate any positive outcomes? The field has far more potential than the microchip.


Who decided which benefits of electronics and computing technology were "freely shared with all mankind" and which were sold for profit? Who decided -- lets all shudder with horror now -- to allow microchips to be used in weaponry? Should we retroactively ban everything from microchips to transistor radios?

Who brought up electronics, is it relevant, I don't think so.

Nor do I think even one of your whataboutisms has Any merit.

 

[Space Lynx]

A) Who gets to decide what genetic alterations/manipulations are ok and which ones are not ? Where do we draw the line ?

there is an easy way to answer all of your questions, genetically modified mosquitoes to reduce their population have already been released, so your questions are a little late to the party lol

it will always be government who gives the ok to go ahead on these things, it won't be private companies.

the answer though is government, for each of your questions.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

The black death may not have been caused by rats, but by us.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42690577.amp

 

[R-T-B]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. In Europe in the Middle Ages, one of the leading causes of death was by bear, wolf, boar or other wild animal attack. And less than 100 years ago, Indian tigers were still killing and eating a thousand people a year -- often small children, snatched directly from their homes. Even smaller animals such as foxes, stoats, weasels, civets, deer -- could indirectly cause death through malnourishment and even starvation through herd predation and crop destruction. Insect infestations were once so feared for their ability to destroy crops that they were considered deadly plagues from God himself.

The entire reason you have plenty of food and free time today to sling a backpack and safely roam through the "nurturing trails of nature" today is because of how much of the original wildlife we've killed.

Humans != the environment