The thesis of that article is that nothing of ecological significance would happen without mosquitos, but the examples given don't seem even close to conclusive.
We know many species of fish and birds that eat mosquitos and mosquito larvae. From a few minutes of internet surfing, it doesn't seem like anyone knows whether other insects would take their place or and how quickly that would happen.
IANA biologist, but maybe fish and birds can survive a couple months while something takes the place of the comparatively short-lived mosquito? In any case this whole idea seems totally under-researched.
From the first article, it mentioned that we have eradicated similar disease vectors like screwworm and melon fly before, so what have been the environmental impact of that so far?
What percentage of the next level up on the food chain lives off mosquitoes? What percentage lives of screwworms and Melon flies?
I have no idea about the answers, but if there is a significant difference there then that might be where trouble could come from.
The problems really start at the reservoir hosts, the mosquitoes are just the transmitters. Controlling the reservoir hosts might be more feasible than eradicating 40 species of mosquito, it sounds like a very ambitious plan to me.
Panama had only 2 problematic species around the (prospective) canal zone.
Eradicating those mosquitoes to allow construction of the canal to proceed without the crews succumbing to Malaria or Yellow Fever was a huge success:
Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better?
Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
>Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better?
It sure does not. After all, tens of thousands of species have gone extinct in our watch. Who knows how many of those were due to having done "this".
>Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
Nope. And I seriously doubt they have shifted "completely".
The malarias that infect humans pretty much only infect humans. I guess it isn't strictly true, but infected humans are certainly the primary reservoir for most of them (maybe you meant humans when you said reservoir hosts, I'm not sure).
The last time I saw something about sterile male mosquitoes it was in the context of releasing them in regions with high rates of malaria, to cut down on the spread, not in the context of eradication.
I live in a mosquito infested area and I have had malaria. Personally, I would love to see the end of all mosquitoes, even if it meant losing a few fish species.
However, even with an incredible amount of research and preparation, eliminating mosquitoes would have an untold number of effects. One effect would most certainly be the exponential growth of the human population. This could be a more difficult pest than mosquitoes.
Someone else has already commented that populations have tended to stabilize quite quickly when childhood mortality drops. Worries about exponential growth always seem to fizzle out within a generation. So I don't think this is a practical concern.
But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling.
No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale.
I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.
This is actually addressed in the article. If people are reasonably certain that all their children will survive to adulthood, they tend to have fewer children.
Supply and demand, I guess. A higher survival rate is going to mean more competition for resources. Increased competition yields higher prices. Higher prices usually mean parents decide to have less kids. Of course, I think industrialization plays a huge role too. If you have a family in an agrarian third world country, then more kids equal more labor, and as long as that kid is healthy and productive, having him is a net positive for income.
But there are less children, less teenagers, less everything, so your hypothesis doesn't hold water.
Let me put forth another hypothesis. Lower mortality means investing in your children has a lower risk. This means you can invest more in your children. Further, lower mortality means lower risk that all your children die, so you don't need to get lots of children for "diversification".
Every time I read an article about this kind of thing, the big selling point usually refers to political and economic ease of eliminating a species of mosquito compared to other trying to fix distribution of medicine and improving infrastructure and health care access.
This seems kind of backwards to me. Wouldn't working on the distribution problem be more effective than eliminating mosquito species? Obviously this is a much more difficult problem, but improvements in this area have benefits beyond disease elimination and treatment. That such things are difficult to achieve via current philanthropy efforts seems to highlight such philanthropy as flawed and in need of adjustment.
Article quotes 6 digits numbers to exterminate mosquitoes over large areas. I believe that is within reach of local governments. Even Kickstarter campaign could fund it. So the question is more when, rather then if.
According to the article, only a small fraction of mosquito species carry diseases harmful to humans. Are there predators that depend solely or mainly on those specific species for food? Could other species take up the disease vector role if the currently harmful species were eliminated?
I don't think it's possible right now for us to predict how the world would change if there were no mosquitos. I expect they play some important role that we don't yet understand. Bees come to mind
One of the takeaways of the article for me was that it's a small subset of all mosquito species that are conveying this disease. I'm not an ecologist, but wouldn't the elimination of one sort of (disease vector) mosquito lead to a different (non-disease vector) species taking over the niche in the ecosystem?
>Engineering the Extinction of 40 Species of Mosquitoes
Hmm, to me it sounds like:
Screw science (which takes time), let's apply half-learned stuff in real life instead and see what sticks.
E.g let's apply what little we know to extinguish mosquitoes we don't like, despite not fully knowning the ecological consequences of our actions. Hopefully we won't have to deal with the mess (or there won't be a mess).
After all we did something similar before. If you do something once and it turned out OK, then even if you don't understand it, it will always come out OK in any other context, right?
“What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'
Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.”
A warm sentiment to be sure, but wonder if it also applies to the orcs marching across the Pelennor, whom you know are intending or enslaved to deal death. Do they also deserve pity and mercy? If not, then why do mosquitos?
In the quote above, Gandalf only advises that one should not strike without need. In the cases of both mosquitoes and orcs, it's not at all clear that xenocide is requisite to ensure the safety of humans or the many dwellers of Middle Earth.
The thesis of that article is that nothing of ecological significance would happen without mosquitos, but the examples given don't seem even close to conclusive.
We know many species of fish and birds that eat mosquitos and mosquito larvae. From a few minutes of internet surfing, it doesn't seem like anyone knows whether other insects would take their place or and how quickly that would happen.
IANA biologist, but maybe fish and birds can survive a couple months while something takes the place of the comparatively short-lived mosquito? In any case this whole idea seems totally under-researched.