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

[Space Lynx]

this...

Most of these insects travel surprisingly little, even if they can fly. The current attempts at controlling mosquitoes would be an Area Denial System, even with 100% success rate.

I disagree, the genetically modified mosquitoes that make females only give birth to males has already worked surprisingly well in large swaths of Florida. Sure, it would take thousands of targeted areas to reduce overall population, but you don't need to eliminate all of them, just thin the herd so to speak... so we can you know... go sit under a tree and a read a book without being bitten constantly.

On that topic, saw this not that long ago and the title really says it all "design mosquitos out of cities"

The same philosophy works for all vermin. They all like specific things. Don't want them? Don't do those things.

I will watch this soon, but I don't live in a city, I live in a small town, and the mosquitoes are horrible in late summer evenings, can't even enjoy the nice weather cause they are so many.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Find the pools of standing water around your place and make sure they can drain.

 

[Space Lynx]

Find the pools of standing water around your place and make sure they can drain.

I live a few streets over from a few ponds. I don't think it matters what I do really, even in dry summers with no standing water I remember mosquitoes being very annoying.

 

[the54thvoid]

Find the pools of standing water around your place and make sure they can drain.

Yeah, in cities you can absolutely minimise their 'hatching' grounds. Just takes some vigilance.

 

[Space Lynx]

Yeah, in cities you can absolutely minimise their 'hatching' grounds. Just takes some vigilance.

I know they used to hire people in my small town to spray with chemicals hatching grounds, but I think in recent years they stopped doing it, not sure why. I know it paid crap, so maybe they just couldn't find anyone to hire. I mean why do that for $11 an hr, when you go to one of the many warehouses desperate for people that pay $23 an hr, no education and no experience needed. /shrug

 

[R-T-B]

7 Natural Predators of Fleas - FleasControl.com

Controlling fleas in the home setting is not a walk in the park. These wingless jumpy creatures can easily hide in hard-to-reach cracks and crevices to avoid pesticides. When in the pupal stage, they can hibernate or become dormant for even one year until you … 7 Natural Predators of Fleas read...

www.fleascontrol.com

19 Animals that Eat Ticks: Natural Tick Predators

Getting rid of ticks is easier than you might think because there are many animals that eat ticks. Some of these animals are natural predators who rely on ticks for their survival, but there are

thebuginator.com

What Eats Mosquitoes - A Big List of Mosquito Predators

pestpush.com

Natural Enemies Of Mosquitoes – List Of Mosquito Predators | BugOfff.com

Ok, so there are predators. I guess the real question then is how emeshed in the food chain they are.

The same philosophy works for all vermin. They all like specific things. Don't want them? Don't do those things.

In the case of mosquitos it's basically "don't have exposed standing water" which while practical in the city maybe simply can't be done everywhere.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Ok, so there are predators. I guess the real question then is how emeshed in the food chain they are.


In the case of mosquitos it's basically "don't have exposed standing water" which while practical in the city maybe simply can't be done everywhere.

In countries with lots of rain, pakistan/india it is not humanely possibly to get rid of all wet areas unless they have the will of god at their disposal

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You don't want to get rid of all of the standing water everywhere because many species require it. Just in places where there's a cost vs. benefit to doing so (especially urban areas). If water needs to be retained, store it a sealed structure or agitate it to make it unattractive to mosquitos.

 

[the54thvoid]

You don't want to get rid of all of the standing water everywhere because many species require it. Just in places where there's a cost vs. benefit to doing so (especially urban areas). If water needs to be retained, store it a sealed structure or agitate it to make it unattractive to mosquitos.

In residential areas, it's far easier to cover water sources etc. That helps reduce the pest population in a larger human population. Same as keeping rats at bay - keep rubbish stored in bins, keep areas tidy etc. Obviously things get tricky in rural/wild areas. But then, that's nature.

 

[Massdeth]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned it, but if you really want to scare yourself and think of all the what if's go look up who Eric Traub was and his back history. He created lymes disease as a early bioweapon. The man was a Nazi monster that came here with Paperclip.

 

[R-T-B]

He created lymes disease as a early bioweapon.

Can't validate this bit and the bits on lyme disease origins I can find in mainstream science seem to dispute that possibility:

Ancient History of Lyme Disease in North America Revealed with Bacterial Genomes

A team of researchers led by the Yale School of Public Health has found that the Lyme disease bacterium is ancient in North America, circulating silently in

medicine.yale.edu

He probably was a baddie, lots of them in paperclip, but just trying to find the facts here.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Yeah, in cities you can absolutely minimise their 'hatching' grounds. Just takes some vigilance.

Have you ever taken a trip in sewers and water tunnels under the city? You might have have a surprise Alien-esque sights there as exactly as many invasive species spend their winter there...

You cannot disable and dry up those places.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned it, but if you really want to scare yourself and think of all the what if's go look up who Eric Traub was and his back history. He created lymes disease as a early bioweapon. The man was a Nazi monster that came here with Paperclip.

It's Erich Traub btw

Can't validate this bit and the bits on lyme disease origins I can find in mainstream science seem to dispute that possibility:

Ancient History of Lyme Disease in North America Revealed with Bacterial Genomes

A team of researchers led by the Yale School of Public Health has found that the Lyme disease bacterium is ancient in North America, circulating silently in

medicine.yale.edu

He probably was a baddie, lots of them in paperclip, but just trying to find the facts here.

It's possible Truab had something to do with Lyme disease which "could" have been created on plum island in the US and spread by modified ticks.

 

[R-T-B]

It's possible Truab had something to do with Lyme disease which "could" have been created on plum island in the US and spread by modified ticks.

Possible is a lot different than passing something off as a fact as was done above.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Possible is a lot different than passing something off as a fact as was done above.

That's why i said "could" have. Little google and Traub was on plum island it seems after the war via paperclip, but couldn't find nothing definitive re link to lyme disease creation by him.

 

[Endymio]

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

You've heard of the concept of "learning from history", I presume? When evaluating whether we should ban or embrace future technology, it is quite relevant to consider that in light of past technologies. An example even more relevant than electronics is the internal combustion engine. Soon after its invention, there was a strong movement in certain nations to ban it outright, as being far too dangerous, using the same arguments and excuses being used against genetic engineering today. The internal combution engine certainly was dangerous -- it kills over one million people every year -- but would you prefer we had banned it instead?

Humans != the environment

Well, you've certainly illustrated the inherent fallacy in modern-day environmentalism. Humans are no more nor less a part of the environment than any deer, whale, or spotted owl. And -- to any sane human at least -- we're the most important part of it.

 

[the54thvoid]

And -- to any sane human at least -- we're the most important part of it.

We're the most important part in so much as we have the power to maintain and protect the environment we live within.

I'd argue there are other creatures more vital to the environment, such as the pollinators that are part of the lifecycle of plants.

 

[Endymio]

Messing with other species, we're likely not going to know how bad it is until it is too late ...The best way for humans to reduce mosquito problems is to prohibit standing water where we reside. No standing water = no mosquitos.

So you're saying we shouldn't "mess with" mosquitos ... except by removing their ability to breed?

In any case, you're about 30 years behind on mosquito research. Standing water is certainly helpful to their breeding cycle, but they can and do lay their eggs in everything from damp soil to tree trunks. Some species can reproduce quite well in dry sand dunes.

I'd argue there are other creatures more vital to the environment, such as the pollinators that are part of the lifecycle of plants.

Given the choice -- the required choice -- to either eliminate all humans, or all pollinating creatures, what do you choose? Choose wisely.

(And, to head off the predictable response, there are a huge number of plants which reproduce asexually, or which can self-pollinate. We won't all starve to death without honeybees and the like)

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

You've heard of the concept of "learning from history", I presume? When evaluating whether we should ban or embrace future technology, it is quite relevant to consider that in light of past technologies. An example even more relevant than electronics is the internal combustion engine. Soon after its invention, there was a strong movement in certain nations to ban it outright, as being far too dangerous, using the same arguments and excuses being used against genetic engineering today. The internal combution engine certainly was dangerous -- it kills over one million people every year -- but would you prefer we had banned it instead?

Well, you've certainly illustrated the inherent fallacy in modern-day environmentalism. Humans are no more nor less a part of the environment than any deer, whale, or spotted owl. And -- to any sane human at least -- we're the most important part of it.

Your joking right so IMHO electronic evolution is irrelevant to a discussion on genetic manipulation of mosquito population.

And you think cars are a good argument.


They are in so much as I previously pointed out.

A Dick head sold the idea of putting lead in fuel to stop knocking, he sciences the shit and Proved it was safe.

Many years, millions of death's and On mass mental impairment later.

That SCIENTIST was wrong , and he has killed more Humans then Any other man.

Now have at genetics science men, Go.

 

[Space Lynx]

Your joking right so IMHO electronic evolution is irrelevant to a discussion on genetic manipulation of mosquito population.

And you think cars are a good argument.


They are in so much as I previously pointed out.

A Dick head sold the idea of putting lead in fuel to stop knocking, he sciences the shit and Proved it was safe.

Many years, millions of death's and On mass mental impairment later.

That SCIENTIST was wrong , and he has killed more Humans then Any other man.

Now have at genetics science men, Go.

not sure what this convo is all about, just wanted to say you are comparing a for profit greedy scumbag single individual with entire teams of the highest scientific minds working together in both the private and non-private sectors.

 

[the54thvoid]

So you're saying we shouldn't "mess with" mosquitos ... except by removing their ability to breed?

In any case, you're about 30 years behind on mosquito research. Standing water is certainly helpful to their breeding cycle, but they can and do lay their eggs in everything from damp soil to tree trunks. Some species can reproduce quite well in dry sand dunes.


Given the choice -- the required choice -- to either eliminate all humans, or all pollinating creatures, what do you choose? Choose wisely.

(And, to head off the predictable response, there are a huge number of plants which reproduce asexually, or which can self-pollinate. We won't all starve to death without honeybees and the like)

I can see where this is going, and it isn't really on topic, so I'll not go down this path of species supremacy, or what is right or wrong.

Going back to the topic, it's pretty clear humans will suffer as the climate alters to more humidity and heat, both of which suit parasite species. Even without any climate change, more humans means a greater footprint and likely more contact with such species.

Care should be taken, regardless what methods are used to minimise parasitic insects.

 

[r9]

 

[Endymio]

it's pretty clear humans will suffer as the climate alters to more humidity and heat, both of which suit parasite species.

It isn't clear at all, and in fact the reverse is more likely to be true. Warmth and humidity are essential to all species, and the arguably most biodiverse period in Earth's history was the warm and wet Carboniferous Period -- a period in which atmospheric CO2 levels were some 10X higher than they are today. In fact, the cooling and drying that ended the Carboniferous led to an ecologically devastating extinction event.

Returning to today, the average temperature of the planet now is about 57F, whereas most of the plants and animals we depend upon prefer something closer to what we ourselves do -- room temperature. Fear-mongering environmentalists spread the myth that only "diseases and parasites" will benefit from this more salubrious climate, but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[the54thvoid]

Tropical parasitic species are being found in more northerly latitudes due to warming. Fish patterns are also changing with warmer waters.

A few degrees of change in geographic areas can, and does, pose a problem.

 

[Endymio]

Tropical parasitic species are being found in more northerly latitudes due to warming. Fish patterns are also changing with warmer waters.

The incidence of parasitic disease among humans has decreased every decade since the industrial revolution began. The sky isn't falling. As for "fish patterns", warmer water means a larger overall fish population. i.e. more food for all. That's a good thing too.

As for the belief that cold, dry climates are best for us, a quick question: would you rather be dropped alone on a warm tropical island, or Antarctica? There's a reason they built Disney World in south Florida, not Saskatchewan. Likewise, there's also a reason the human species began in Africa, not Siberia.