Genetically Modifying Parasite Resistant Mosquitoes Preventing Disease Spread to Humans

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

As many are aware the most dangerous animal on earth is in fact the Mosquito due to its role in spreading diseases to humans. Scientists have been genetically modifying mosquitoes to be resistant to the parasites that infect humans with diseases such as Malaria and Dengue fever. If it is possible to genetically engineer mosquitoes to not be able to infect humans to reduce the spread of disease, do you think they should be able to do so? What would be the pros and cons to doing so?

If you have not read about this , you can do so here:
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes-malaria-20151121-story.html

Personally I am for this and see this as one of the greater advancements of mankind and as long as the proper precautions are taken to reduce to risk of mutations there is little risk to doing so. With increased global temperatures, mosquitoes will be venturing further north for longer periods of time and greatly increasing their numbers globally. The warmer the climate, the more mosquitoes you generally wind up with and with that increase also comes the increase of the spread of disease. IF they have a way to reduce this impact on humans, that would be a great thing, otherwise we are looking at a much increased spread of disease along with their increase in numbers. I think this could very well be a better way to try and combat this for the foreseeable future.

 

[Asclepion]

I would still support a planned extinction with the use of a Gene Drive. I'm of the belief that ensuring the general welfare of people is more important than preserving biodiversity, and organisms that cause human suffering should be destroyed.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Huh. If that's actually possible, that would be a far greater alternative to planned extinction, since mosquitoes are vital to a large number of ecosystems (their larvae are a numerous and consistent food source for small insectivores, and their blood-bloated adults are a very nutritious food source for larger ones).

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Huh. If that's actually possible, that would be a far greater alternative to planned extinction, since mosquitoes are vital to a large number of ecosystems (their larvae are a numerous and consistent food source for small insectivores, and their blood-bloated adults are a very nutritious food source for larger ones).

Yes, I think genetically modifying them to not be able to harm us is a much less dangerous idea than trying to eradicate them. As long as we take proper precautions to prevent mutations it would not be that risky to do. The tests thus far are promising and we really have a chance at greatly reducing the spread of disease globally if we can get this done properly.

 

[Bobular]

I think this is a good way of solving the problem, better then trying to exterminate another species that has a role in the local ecosystem, and a great step forward for science if we can actually pull it off.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

 

[chadachada123]

Of the two solutions (wiping them out or making them not harmful to humans), I really don't have a preference, except for the one that can be developed and spread the quickest.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

If the technology already exists, what would you propose? Only using it on countries that aren't shit? Can you imagine the shitstorm that would cause? It seems like a lose-lose no matter what, so long as Africa doesn't have an infrastructure to support their unsustainable birth rate (or slice that birth rate in half).

 

[Bobular]

Of the two solutions (wiping them out or making them not harmful to humans), I really don't have a preference, except for the one that can be developed and spread the quickest.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

If the technology already exists, what would you propose? Only using it on countries that aren't shit? Can you imagine the shitstorm that would cause? It seems like a lose-lose no matter what, so long as Africa doesn't have an infrastructure to support their unsustainable birth rate (or slice that birth rate in half).

Now the technology exists you can't not use it, that's not how science works, my point was basically it is lose-lose unfortunately.

I personally just don't like how scientists are constantly curing diseases and increasing fertility rates. I'm not going to tell them to stop because I believe science should be unrestricted, but I just wish more progress could be made in supporting the population before science makes 100 middle aged.

 

[chadachada123]

If the technology already exists, what would you propose? Only using it on countries that aren't shit? Can you imagine the shitstorm that would cause? It seems like a lose-lose no matter what, so long as Africa doesn't have an infrastructure to support their unsustainable birth rate (or slice that birth rate in half).

Now the technology exists you can't not use it, that's not how science works, my point was basically it is lose-lose unfortunately.

I personally just don't like how scientists are constantly curing diseases and increasing fertility rates. I'm not going to tell them to stop because I believe science should be unrestricted, but I just wish more progress could be made in supporting the population before science makes 100 middle aged.

Now that sentiment I totally share. Unfortunately, I'd argue that we have all of the technology needed to build a sustainable infrastructure in much of Africa, but we just don't have the funding, manpower, and (most importantly) detailed planning necessary to implement it. Last thing we want is a continuation of our current problem, which is letting aid fall into the hands of warlords and whatnot.

In that sense, it's not that science is going too fast, but that everyone else is going too slow. And it's a damn shame.

 

[Bobular]

In that sense, it's not that science is going too fast, but that everyone else is going too slow. And it's a damn shame.

I will agree with you about this 100%. We put a man on the moon decades ago and are on the verge of actual VR, but can't figure out how to shift around resources adequately.

 

[Asclepion]

I'm going to contest the premise that mosquitoes are somehow irreplaceable or a necessary part of the biosphere.

1. Mosquitoes serve as food sources for a variety of organisms but are not crucial to any predator species. Bats feed mainly on moths.

2. Even if other organisms are so overspecialized that they can only feed on mosquitoes, I'm willing to tolerate their extinction. If malaria is eradicated from the world but some fish are also wiped out, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

3. Humans have caused the extinctions of many other species without leading to general ecological collapse.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

You what?

So...if the proposed solution was to kill off the inhabitants of the UK, who use more resources than the people of Africa (as a rule), how would you feel about that?

 

[Bobular]

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

You what?

So...if the proposed solution was to kill off the inhabitants of the UK, who use more resources than the people of Africa (as a rule), how would you feel about that?

At no point did I say to kill off anybody, my opening paragraph even said how I thought that this was a good thing way of solving the proplem.

I was saying that forward planning is needed to ensure that there is food for an additional almost half a million people annually if we remove another population control from our species. I said that it was horrible that people are currently dying of mosquito born diseases and that the people who's loved ones are doing the dying are going to, rightly, want to change that.

All I'm saying is to ensure that these extra people on the planet don't just die of starvation instead of disease.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

You what?

So...if the proposed solution was to kill off the inhabitants of the UK, who use more resources than the people of Africa (as a rule), how would you feel about that?

At no point did I say to kill off anybody, my opening paragraph even said how I thought that this was a good thing way of solving the proplem.

I was saying that forward planning is needed to ensure that there is food for an additional almost half a million people annually if we remove another population control from our species. I said that it was horrible that people are currently dying of mosquito born diseases and that the people who's loved ones are doing the dying are going to, rightly, want to change that.

All I'm saying is to ensure that these extra people on the planet don't just die of starvation instead of disease.

Ah, ok, extra resources because there will be more because, not less people because there won't?

Fair enough, I seem to have misread you there.

 

[K12]

I love this technology and the rather shocking thing is just how successful the initial testing has been, to the point that it could have the ability to set this off in a handful of years rather than a decade or so.

The ethical and safety based arguments are going to go on for quite a long time though because this basically sounds quite a lot like the pre-ample to a pandemic/ zombie apocalypse film. I'm very much in favour but it does seem primed to have large scale unintended consequences. It's a major risk developing something and then just releasing it into the wild to work on it's own.

 

[maninahat]

I think this is a good way of solving the problem, better then trying to exterminate another species that has a role in the local ecosystem, and a great step forward for science if we can actually pull it off.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

Well, there are no stupid questions, but I do think it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that removing one population control is bad if another one still exists. Consider the reverse; should we end famines if it just means more people could be subjected to deadly mosquito bites?

Four hundred thousand people is a drop in the ocean to a continent of a billion people, but a lot of families would appreciate relatives not dying from avoidable deaths. Their survival is only adding a slight bit of pressure to another big problem that also requires solving.

 

[Bobular]

I think this is a good way of solving the problem, better then trying to exterminate another species that has a role in the local ecosystem, and a great step forward for science if we can actually pull it off.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

Well, there are no stupid questions, but I do think it is a bit ridiculous to suggest that removing one population control is bad if another one still exists. Consider the reverse; should we end famines if it just means more people could be subjected to deadly mosquito bites?

Four hundred thousand people is a drop in the ocean to a continent of a billion people, but a lot of families would appreciate relatives not dying from avoidable deaths. Their survival is only adding a slight bit of pressure to another big problem that also requires solving.

First I'll admit I don't know what I'm talking about and am just taking educated guesses with what I say.

I can see the argument that removing one population control isn't a problem if there are other things to control that population, but I don't think it'll be that simple. Obviously with more people there will be more farmers and hopefully more food, but the problem is that the small time farmers in places like Africa can't grow food on the scale that the big industrial scale farmers can due to lack of machinery, advanced crops and stability, because of this I believe that there would be less food per person (guess, no evidence). A lack of resources could cause an increase of violence in the region as people fight over the available resources. So potentially curing malaria could result in more deaths than caused by malaria, but as I said this is all me guessing.

I've took a very pessimistic outlook here and I don't actually believe that curing disease is a bad thing especially as we will probably see an increase in cases over the next few decades, I just want there to be some planning done to take into account increases in population.

 

[conmag9]

I'm not a biologist, so my opinion on the idea isn't necessarily a well informed one. Just a boiler plate warning there.

My initial thought is that stopping them from being a huge risk to humans is great. I'm not sure how long it would take to actually supplant the current types of mosquito, or what guarantees that at all, but I would be a very happy camper if diseases like malaria and the like were neutered. My own hatred for flying insects adds icing to the cake.

But most of my initial concerns about using that instead of just wiping them out (if we can affect a hugely populous species like that, killing them should be easier anyway) are mostly set on the idea of unforeseen consequences to the food chain. My second thoughts are that...is it really so inflexible? Other species have vanished (or been destroyed) before without causing the doom of ours.

I suppose at the end of the day the smarter solution would be to make them safe, rather then annihilate the bloodsuckers. At least until our ability to project the consequences improves significantly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But most of my initial concerns about using that instead of just wiping them out (if we can affect a hugely populous species like that, killing them should be easier anyway) are mostly set on the idea of unforeseen consequences to the food chain. My second thoughts are that...is it really so inflexible? Other species have vanished (or been destroyed) before without causing the doom of ours.

I suppose at the end of the day the smarter solution would be to make them safe, rather then annihilate the bloodsuckers. At least until our ability to project the consequences improves significantly.

Previous attempts to stop malaria generally have been about eliminating mosquitos, AFAIK, there's been no serious side effects from this.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

But most of my initial concerns about using that instead of just wiping them out (if we can affect a hugely populous species like that, killing them should be easier anyway) are mostly set on the idea of unforeseen consequences to the food chain. My second thoughts are that...is it really so inflexible? Other species have vanished (or been destroyed) before without causing the doom of ours.

I suppose at the end of the day the smarter solution would be to make them safe, rather then annihilate the bloodsuckers. At least until our ability to project the consequences improves significantly.

Previous attempts to stop malaria generally have been about eliminating mosquitos, AFAIK, there's been no serious side effects from this.

We cannot really know how serious the side effects of that are on a large scale long term as every eco system is different. Simply because it did okay in on area, does not mean it will have the same result in another. It affects aquatic life much moreso due to the amount of larvae that are a food source. There are conflicting studies and information on the immediate and long term affects of this. Some say they are replaced as a food source, while others say it affected the immune systems of the fish. I still think the safer bet is to genetically modify them to be harmless to humans just in case.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I think this is a good way of solving the problem, better then trying to exterminate another species that has a role in the local ecosystem, and a great step forward for science if we can actually pull it off.

The only problem with it is does humanity need to remove another population control? Whilst malaria is a horrible way to die for both the patient and the family and obviously they are going to want to put a stop to it, a lot of the places where malaria is rampant are also places with overpopulation causing food problems as it is, the WHO say that last year there were an estimated 438000 malaria deaths, 90% of which were in Africa.

Can Africa cope with an additional 394200 every year on top of what it already has? Are you just dooming these people to die of starvation rather than malaria?

The end goal is not have them die of either, and sadly due to greed, not lack of resources, people are still starving on this planet. You reduce family size through education and increase standard of living, not by starving them and letting them die from disease and suffering. The more of their children that survive to adulthood, the less children they will have, this has been shown repeatedly to be the case throughout history. We should be doing everything we can to eradicate suffering and death from disease and increase global standard of living if we want to see these things improve long term. The key to " population controls" is ending poverty and increasing global prosperity so people will not have to have 12 kids to have one or two survive to adulthood.