Pharyngula

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 27, 2010 11:01 AM

Yep. It's purest hubris to think you could predict the ecosystem-level knock-on effects that would occur. First rule of tinkering and all that.

entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association

Aha.
There are different flavors of entomologist, and these guys are what you call yer "nozzleheads".
They have them a hammer, and damn if everything with an exoskeleton don't look like a damn nail.

Ask an insect ecologist and get a more reasonable answer.

Posted by: Infinite Human Stupidity | July 27, 2010 11:02 AM

Hmm... We don't seem to have any qualms about eradicating a virus like smallpox...

Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 27, 2010 11:04 AM

If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not.

This is a logical fallacy, specifically the fallacy of division. Just because the whole has a particular property, does not mean every part has that particular property.

From the fallacy files:
People are made out of atoms.
People are visible.
Therefore, atoms are visible.

is no different than

The biosphere has mosquitoes.
The biosphere is good.
Therefore mosquitoes are good.

I am not saying the conclusion is wrong, but I would expect something better than such a blatant logical fallacy from a scientist.

Posted by: Sajanas | July 27, 2010 11:07 AM

Viruses are different than Mosquitoes (and human only parasites in general) in that they only affect one species, and aren't really involved in heavy ecological lifting. I hate Mosquitoes, but I imagine a large number of birds, fish, and other insects would go extinct without them as part of their diet.
What would be really interesting is trying to genetically engineer mosquitoes that cannot carry the illnesses that affect humans, though I wonder if some of the pathogens don't provide a selective benefit to their vectors. I know plague doesn't, since it blocks off the throat of the flee that carries it, but maybe something like Malaria gives a boost in some way to avoid the mosquito evolving a defense.

Posted by: MetaEd | July 27, 2010 11:09 AM

The environmentalists and the patriots will unite to ensure this never happens ... the mosquito is the state bird of Minnesota.

Posted by: D'oh! | July 27, 2010 11:21 AM

Yeah, genetic engineer mosquitoes so that they can't carry human diseases. And while the genetic engineers are at it, they can tinker with my genetics so that I am not so tasty to mosquitoes and don't welt every time I am bitten. Honestly, I don't think I'd mind mosquitoes so much if I didn't form large, itchy, scarring welts.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 27, 2010 11:22 AM

Plus it seems odd. There are non-blood sucking members of the genus. There are non-human parasitic members. Plus without them we wouldn't get cool pictures like this.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/139/3/4/Suspended_microcosm_by_Ing213.jpg

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 27, 2010 11:25 AM

Without mosquitoes, would there be dragonflies?!? :-O

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 27, 2010 11:32 AM

If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.

I thought immediately of smallpox, too. But maybe eradicating it, or P. falciparum (as some hope to do, although there seems no convincing mechanism for it), isn't so much the point as the obvious fact that modern medicine has undoubtedly changed our impact on the environment immensely.

Would anyone really argue against modern medicine, though? And so, if we were able to rid the world of at least Anopheles mosquitoes (which I believe is what the debate really is about), should we flinch at that?

I don't think we have to preserve many, if any, of the scourges of humankind, and ridding the world of Anopheles mosquitoes seems to fit the description of environment tampering that we've been willing to effect for the sake of humans.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: G.D. | July 27, 2010 11:37 AM

But it's not so fallacious in biology, with its complex hierarchical organization. Emergent properties at each level are caused by the organization of parts at a lower level.

No. It's just as fallacious in biology as it is elsewhere. That emergent properties at each level are caused by the organization of parts at a lower level is true of virtually everything (apart, perhaps, from certain philosophers' properties). Doesn't mean that every property of the emergent level holds all the way down, which is strictly speaking what Aldo Leopold was explicitly claiming. I see what he was getting at, and that may be correct, but the fallacy still sticks out like a sore thumb.

Because of the organizational complexity at each level, there is no way to know a priori which parts are necessary or sufficient to bring about an emergent property of the next level up.

Now this, on the other hand, is surely correct, and is the argument that Aldo Leopold should have been making. But it is a wholly different one (concerning the limits of human understanding and knowledge) than the one he made (the metaphysical claim that if X has some property, then all its parts necessarily has the property as well).

I'm nitpicking, of course

Posted by: Curt Cameron | July 27, 2010 11:37 AM

OK, I'll grudgingly admit that mosquitoes are an integral part of the environment and we shouldn't wipe them out. Maybe scientists can figure out a way to genetically engineer ME so that my sweat glands produce DEET.

But what about ticks? Would anyone be upset if we could snap our fingers and have all the ticks in the world magically vanish?

Chiggers too. I say wipe 'em out.

Posted by: Infinite Human Stupidity | July 27, 2010 11:43 AM

@irenedelse, sajanas and sven dimilo:

I was talking on principle. Either you say you can eradicate a living species or you can't. (I'm all for it.)

Good that you mention Dracunculus. It is a nematode, which - as far as I know - are at the bottom of the food chain and thus provide a substantial amount of biomass.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 27, 2010 11:45 AM

@22

No. There's a difference between treating the disease and removing the pressure it puts on the population all together. And it's not binary. My point was that malaria treatment requires non-medical intervention to be successful. Without fixing the social and economic problems of some of the areas you'll be replacing malaria caused deaths with famine or war caused deaths. There is a HUGE difference between continuing to treat diseases and lesser the morbidity rates of them, and completely removing them. For comparison the Guinea worm is on the list of acceptable to eradicate as it causes high suffering without high mortality.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 27, 2010 11:46 AM

And I'd hardly categorize the worldwide eradication of an entire insect genus as "medicine".

I suppose that's why I didn't call it "medicine" but "environment-tampering."

Reading properly is not a superfluous talent.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2010 11:51 AM

Aha. There are different flavors of entomologist, and these guys are what you call yer "nozzleheads". They have them a hammer, and damn if everything with an exoskeleton don't look like a damn nail. Ask an insect ecologist and get a more reasonable answer.

I know what my entomologist grandfather would have said about this whole thing.

*did I just Kw*k my grandfather?

Posted by: reason | July 27, 2010 11:53 AM

Its not so much that they bite that bugs me (lots of other creatures do that), it is that they keep you awake night while they do it. But as another commenter says, there are ecosystems that do fine without biting mosquitoes and there are mosquitoes that don't bite. It is quite feasable to imagine the ecosystem doing fine without biting mosquitoes. That doesn't mean that wiping them out without first doing extensive trials is something that I'd support.

Posted by: Infinite Human Stupidity | July 27, 2010 12:11 PM

@Ing:

#28: That's only half the story... the larvae of the Dracunculus are definitely food for some animal.

#30: You are wrong. Saying there are different "times" were you can or cannot alter the environment, is answering my question with: 'Yes, you can eradicate a species (albeit only under certain circumstances)'.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 27, 2010 12:19 PM

Ecosystems are complex things, but if we know anything it surely is that altering them can have unpredicted, and unwanted, effects.

Posted by: ritchie.annand | July 27, 2010 12:25 PM

For those concerned about the bats, note the bit in the article:

Other insectivores might not miss them at all: bats feed mostly on moths, and less than 2% of their gut content is mosquitoes.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 12:25 PM

"If you're expending energy," says medical entomologist Janet McAllister of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colorado, "are you going to eat the 22-ounce filet-mignon moth or the 6-ounce hamburger mosquito?"

What the hell? Reads like an ad from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. With over 3,000 species distributed worldwide and the family dating back to the Cretaceous at least, something's eating them.

Maybe some other, even more noxious critter would step in and thrive. Giant biting flies of death or something.

"Run for your lives! It's the Teabaggers! They—they've evolved!"

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 27, 2010 12:35 PM

It's odd, since I live in Minnesota, where we get clouds of the bitin' beasts, and they are regarded as major nuisances…but at the same time everyone understands that they also feed the fish that stock our lakes.

Not just nuisances, come on now. They also transmit deadly diseases to people and animals, and some people have horrible reactions to mosquito bites. I've been lucky to have minimal reaction and have practiced resisting the urge to itch for about one minute after which it stops itching, but I've seen the damage a mosquito bite can do to a person who is allergic.

Posted by: Snoof | July 27, 2010 12:38 PM

I was happy to see one quoting Aldo Leopold:....If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts?

Hmm. Doesn't that sound faintly Gaian to y'all?

Nah, not really. You could argue that the phrase "the biota has built" implies agency on the part of the biota (which is the keystone of the Gaia Hypothesis, in my understanding), but frankly I don't know if that would be a supportable reading in the context. For one thing, English is a lousy language when it comes to attempting to describe causation _without_ intent, so it's quite common to use language with connotations of agency when discussing events, with the mutual understanding that no agents were actually involved.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 12:51 PM

I've been lucky to have minimal reaction and have practiced resisting the urge to itch for about one minute after which it stops itching

I've seen this word used in this context a number of times and have to ask if this is a regional or generational thing. I'm not that old, but I always understood an 'itch' is some sort of irritation that one 'scratches' to get rid of. Yet I've recently heard people say they were 'itching', which I took to mean they felt 'itchy', but later realised they meant they were doing what I call 'scratching'. Is this what the kids say these days?

In short, get off my lawn.

Posted by: Robert Thille | July 27, 2010 12:54 PM

Isn't there at least one species that doesn't like to bite humans? Perhaps we can figure out what causes that dislike and somehow introduce that feature into different species around the world that are pests to humans. If all mosquitos suddenly stopped biting humans, it would have an impact on the ecosystem, but certainly much less than wiping them out.

Posted by: windy | July 27, 2010 1:13 PM

I live in Minnesota, where we get clouds of the bitin' beasts, and they are regarded as major nuisances…but at the same time everyone understands that they also feed the fish that stock our lakes.

Are you sure it's really a major food source? Mosquitoes tend to breed in stagnant pools, not in lakes where there are a lot of fish.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 1:21 PM

I assure you that it has nothing to do with kids. It is a kind of scratching that is soothing and relieves pain.

Yeah. We call that 'scratching'. One scratches an itch. Like in the saying 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine.' I realise I'm being prescriptivist; it's just a construction that irks me.

Personally, I like scratching mosquito bites until they bleed. It's the only time I feel.

Posted by: Dianne | July 27, 2010 1:27 PM

I've thought about this idea often, usually after a camping trip. Eradicating mosquitos seems hopeless, whether it's a good idea or a bad one. What about making them less harmful? For example, making a more efficient mosquito that only needs to bite once to get enough blood to reproduce. Sure, it'd still be annoying-possibly even more annoying than before-but it wouldn't carry disease because the blood transmission ends with the first animal bit. Said mosquito would probably easily outbreed the wild type and fill its niche. Then...no more malaria, dengue fever, west nile encephalitis, etc. And the bats and fish still have food.

Posted by: Chris Clarke | July 27, 2010 1:35 PM

Are you sure it's really a major food source? Mosquitoes tend to breed in stagnant pools, not in lakes where there are a lot of fish.

Think about that for a minute. Why are fewer mosquito larvae seen in habitats full of fish that might eat them?

Posted by: dWhisper | July 27, 2010 1:38 PM

It seems odd to think that something would fill the food niche that mosquitoes provide when it seems that taking the primary food source would greatly increase stress on secondary sources.

We already see that very effect in the ocean ecosystems we've been disrupting for our dinner tables (our tasty, tasty fish dishes) for years.

Posted by: Big Boppa | July 27, 2010 1:40 PM

And what do they propose we do with all the caribou that will explode like big, bloody water balloons when we don't have mosquitoes keeping them safely tapped?

Posted by: Sean | July 27, 2010 1:41 PM

Commenters on scienceblogs!...Mosquitoes are not a genus! Ticks are not a genus! Mosquitoes are a family made up of many genera. Ticks are a group comprised of several families and many genera.
As for eradication of all relevant genera that transmit malaria? Impossible. Even one species, likely impossible. Were it possible, it would have been done in the 60's, when budgets for interventions were way higher than today (comparatively).
I think the only ways to eradicate malaria will be
a) development of an effective vaccine
b) elevation of afflicted areas to relative prosperity, with improvements in housing, drainage and access to medical care...That's how it was eliminated in Western Europe and North America.
Relieve won't come from transgenic mosquitoes, at least not on a continental scale. Lab mosquitoes will never outcompete wild ones...Maybe if there were some kind of TE type driver that was ecologically beneficial or neutral to the carrier...But that is a whole nuther thing...`

Posted by: Erik | July 27, 2010 1:52 PM

This reminded me of an article I read where they talked about mosquitoes that were bred to be resistant to malaria.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/genetically-engineered-mosquitoes-are-100-percent-resistant-malaria-parasite

I imagine that it would be difficult to replace an existing variety with these newly bred mosquitoes, but I think it would be interesting to hear discussion on it.

Posted by: H.H. | July 27, 2010 2:03 PM

The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?"

Radio personality and lovable moron Karl Pilkington (from the Ricky Gervais Show) used to do a bit called "Do we need them?" during which he would quiz scientists on the necessity of certain animal species. For example: Octopuses, do we need 'em? It was always unclear what Karl proposed to do if a species was designated as superfluous, but he had to stop the bit after a short run anyway since he could never find a scientist who would consent that a given species was unneeded. Classic stuff. I love Karl.

Posted by: Doc | July 27, 2010 2:13 PM

Eradicating smallpox did have serious ecological effects. There are now even more of these big brutal bipeds ripping into the environment.

PZ, I hope that was tongue in cheek...

Posted by: johnlil#0a224 | July 27, 2010 2:23 PM

Given that mosquito-borne diseases are a major cause of human mortality, especially in places that are already over-populated, I suggest we not get rid of mosquitoes until we can persuade humans everywhere to practice birth control.
Plus, the good people at Off! would lose their jobs.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | July 27, 2010 2:30 PM

"" I live in Minnesota, where we get clouds of the bitin' beasts, and they are regarded as major nuisances…but at the same time everyone understands that they also feed the fish that stock our lakes.

Are you sure it's really a major food source? Mosquitoes tend to breed in stagnant pools, not in lakes where there are a lot of fish.""

well it is not the result of a study I made but from observation I have seen large "swarms" of insects that appeared to be mosquitoes flying over the surface of the few California lakes and streams I have been to, also in the near vicinity and at the margins of these lakes and streams where I have witnessed these insects were small bodies of water where the mosquito larva could grow safe from predators and strong currents.
Though I did not do an in depth analysis of the contents of the stomachs of the fish I did catch it did seem that some large fraction of the contents were the bodies of mosquitoes.

I think I saw on TV or read somewhere that all the biting insects in the arctic help keep the grazers from staying in one place very long and over grazing there by helping to maintain the over all health of the system as a whole.
no easy answers

Posted by: ritchie.annand | July 27, 2010 2:40 PM

That's an insanely broad brush. Do you have any idea how many different species of insectivorous bats are out there?

It may be an 'insanely broad brush', but the highest mosquito gut contents I've come across in a study was that of pregnant Myotis sodalis:

"Although most insectivorous bats do not prey on mosquitoes (Culicidae), these insects were a consistent component of the diet of Indiana bats and were eaten most heavily during pregnancy (6.6%)"

Posted by: blf | July 27, 2010 2:48 PM

If mosquitoes irritate people, or are vectors for disease, why not get rid of the people?
The Elephant Gun probably works better on larger targets.
A useful benefit of an Earth sans long pig is there would also be no trolls.

Posted by: JackC | July 27, 2010 3:05 PM

Brownian, up there .. somewhere (waves vaguely) - yeah, my wife does that too.

Wife: "Itch my back."
Me: "It already itches."
Wife: "What???"

Also - I recently found out that dragonflies eat wasps. Yay Dragonflies!

JC

Posted by: Kate from Iowa | July 27, 2010 3:16 PM

WTF? "Something better or worse would take over." Seriously? That's what you've got for why mosquito eradication might not be such a bad idea? Okay, so what if it's something worse? And I mean like cane toads and rabbits in Australia worse, not "oh, the bump on my arm is slightly bigger and itchier" worse, what then? I mean really, does the guy have his head so far up his ass he has to breathe through his nipples or what?

And the whole thing about the caribou (and other blood)...you know, all that blood dosen't just feed the damned mosquitos, it feeds the stuff that feeds on the mosquitos too. No single part of the ecosystem survives in a vacuum, that's why it a freakin' system! Say you take away the mosquito and replace it with something that isn't a bloodsucking little bastard...and suddenly all the fish start dying off because of fishie malnutrition...and then the birds start to go...and the four footed critters that ate either the fish or the birds...and little befurred and befeathered and bescaled corpses litter the countryside...that's a better fucking world just because you don't have to worry about running out of OFF?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 27, 2010 3:24 PM

Hey, I know, maybe Craig Venter and Exxon could find a way to extract oil from mosquitos... or how about Happy Meals? I'll have a double Skito burger. Why waste all that good biomass?

Posted by: blf | July 27, 2010 3:33 PM

I'd still press the button that eliminates every kind of snail and slug around in an instant, though.

What! No escargot? Mad. You're mad.
You probably eatlike peas. Totally mad.

Posted by: xyx | July 27, 2010 3:47 PM

The notion that ecological systems are sitting on a precipice and any change will cause a series of cascading effects leading to massive destruction is just wrong. Ecological systems are robust and redundant--kill off one group and their competitors will grow to compensate. Sure, if you introduce an entirely new functional group to a system--say a nitrogen fixing plant, or rats on islands which have never seen rodents, horrible stuff will happen. But removing one group of nectar feeding insects isn't going to kill off all the birds and fish. As for the contribution of blood, I suspect it's insignificant. Organisms which sit mostly on the third trophic level won't be deprived much by the loss of a food source also at that trophic level, by obvious energy transfer efficiency arguments. Weighed against millions of dead a year there's little contest. If you want to support ecosystem conservation, there are many better battles to fight--e.g, reduce your intake of meat and fish.

Posted by: chaseacross | July 27, 2010 3:52 PM

It's very easy for us in the West to scoff at the idea of eradicating the mosquito menace. However, there are parts of the world where literally every mosquito bite is potentially a death sentence for a child. Protecting the biosphere is all well and good, but I agree there are some places that would be better off without mosquitos; places where any disruption in the food web is justifiable because of the human toll of malaria.

Oh, and did you know it took a localized mosquito erdication to make the Panama Canal?

Posted by: Sean | July 27, 2010 4:06 PM

chaseacross
no, it was not mosquito eradication. It was control of Aedes aegypti and some Anopheles (there was malaria as well) in the zone where workers were living and working. The tone of this article suggests that it is within the realm of possibility to completely eradicate all mosquitoes from the face of the earth, which is a fricken pipe dream. Granted, the article was written by an intern. Had ANY of the scientists she quoted been consulted to review her article, they would have made some quite drastic edits to make it seem less naiive and irrelevant.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 27, 2010 4:11 PM

windy @84,

How about traditional Kungu from Malawi? It's made out of phantom midges that are "crushed, boiled, molded into cakes, and dried in the sun".

Sounds yummy to me!

Probably beats the heck out of corn fed, ground up cow, with deep fried potato and carbonated sucrose and colored water, as far as nutritional content is concerned.

Fast forward to 2030, This just in! Phantom midge, rustlers held up the owners of the Diptera ranch and raided the old fly corral taking all the mating stock. Authorities think this was the same group that raided the Drosophila farm late last month...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 27, 2010 4:19 PM

Something better or worse would take over.

Interestin' how that worse tends to be glossed over.

I have no love for mosquitoes, they've been especially bad this year due to all the rain. All those mosquitoes help keep the population of Myotis lucifugus healthy.

Posted by: Sean | July 27, 2010 4:30 PM

Anyway, I guess you could say that this article is about as useful as one discussing the scenarios that might ensue should our species finally stop nuclear fusion in the sun (which is definitely my goal!).

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 4:37 PM

Huh? "take their place?" How are mosquitoes suppressing other insects now?

Hmm. Bloodsuckers pushing everybody around. Sounds familiar.

Rmember, if you want to get rid of all the mosquitoes, you have to kill Edward Herrmann, not Kiefer Sutherland. And don't ever invite him into your house, you silly boy. It renders you powerless.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 4:44 PM

The issue isn't biomass (no energy is removed from the system by removing a species, it is just redistributed), but functional specificity--what important ecosystem function do mosquitoes provide that their competitors would not? And while deforestation and global warming are complex moral issues in that in some sense they represent a conflict between current economic growth and long-term sustainability, no such conflict exists here, because removing human-parasitic mosquitoes from an ecosystem will not, in general, lead to the degradation of that ecosystem. There are many other organisms which look a lot like mosquitoes in terms of energy transfers but don't share their particular life feature of parasitizing mammals.

I see what you're saying xyx, but given the size and distribution of mosquito populations (even restricting our concern to the malaria transmitting Anopheles sp), isn't it likely that they fulfill a variety of functions and thus would cause degradation were they to disappear?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 27, 2010 4:52 PM

the highest mosquito gut contents I've come across in a study was that of pregnant Myotis sodalis:

Huh, thanks for the data. That's surprising. Note, though, that that's percent fecal volume.

The notion that ecological systems are sitting on a precipice and any change will cause a series of cascading effects leading to massive destruction is just wrong.

Right, just exactly as wrong as every other ridiculously broad-brushed generalization/strawman. There are different ecological systems. There are different changes. While of course not "any change" will lead to massive destruction, it's really not hard these days to learn about the many empirical examples of real ecological cascades, both top-down and bottom-up.

Ecological systems are robust and redundant--kill off one group and their competitors will grow to compensate.

*rolls eyes*
You're issuing these pronouncements from on high or something? You're comfortable with that kind of ridiculous general assertion? The point is that some changes will likely be compensated, others won't and it won't make any difference, and still others may in fact wreak destruction. But ecosystems are so complex that it is impossible to predict a priori which is which.
-------------------------
Meanwhile, in GlenD-land:

Bullshit, you fucking liar....If you weren't a fuckwit and a reflexive asshole you wouldn't continue on with your gross dishonesty... I don't doubt that you'll just blither on in your hatred and stupidity, fuckhead...it takes both your stupidity and your dishonesty to back up your previous lies with the stupidity of conflating comparison and analogy with conflation itself. Apparently "clear writing" for you is spelling out everything, for people like you who are too stupid to recognize analogy and comparison. The point, moron, of analogy and comparison is that most people get it without one having to spell it out like they're fifth graders. If you don't understand normal language, get off the boards, you insipid cretin. Whatever, dolt, I've spent enough time with your inability to understand rather obvious facts.

Dude, wtf? Off the meds? Practicing your starfarting? You don;t find that just a lit...tle over the top in response to a comment that mildly criticized the clarity of your writing?
Look, I'll even cop to occasional stupidity, if you want, but "hatred"? "dishonesty"? What are you smoking? My "previous lies"? What in the freakin world are you talking about?

yeah, I used to find Glen's occasinal little Tourettes-like outbursts kind of amusing, but not so much anymore. Back in the killfile.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 27, 2010 5:08 PM

@ Infinite Human Stupidity: The smallpox virus was only a parasite of humans, it didn't impact the whole ecosystem.

Iono - look what's happened to the ecosystem now that we've tamed most human illnesses and reduced childhood mortality. Would we still have 6 milliard going on 9 milliard people mucking about, if we hadn't killed off polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, scarlet fever, syphilis, whooping cough and simple bacterial infections?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2010 5:25 PM

I'm for eradicating all mosquitoes within a five foot radius from myself, at all times.

Any other mosquito should be treated as needed.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2010 5:38 PM

What level of degradation are we talking about?

I don't know. I'm not an ecologist. But I'd like to see some evidence that the removal of an ubiquitous group of species that have existed since the Cretaceous would be minimal before we attempt such an undertaking.

When the benefits are 1 million fewer people dying each year and hundreds of millions not getting sick

Permethrin- or deltamethrin-impregnated bednets carry a much lower risk of ecological degradation.

Okay. What about just killing the bad mosquitoes then?

Sounds good in theory until you realise all the mosquitoes being killed belong to a specific group and the next thing you know a skeeter in the Bronx is being filled with lead for pulling a wallet out of its jacket pocket.

Posted by: Paul | July 27, 2010 5:42 PM

Funny. People are saying it's bad to eradicate all mosquitoes because not all mosquitoes eat blood and/or carry malaria/yellow fever.

Okay. What about just killing the bad mosquitoes then?

We going to catch all the mosquitoes then hire legions of insect specialists to point out which we should squish and which we should re-release?

Posted by: Sean | July 27, 2010 6:00 PM

@Sili, The Unknown Virgin
The discussion is getting a little silly methinks...The point is, you CANNOT eradicate all mosquitoes or even a single species on a continent (with islands your results may vary). It is impossible.
Maybe not technically impossible, but for all practical purposes impossible. Maybe, with a gazillion dollars investment, it could be done for a player in the malaria game, but just look at Africa...The Anopheles gambiae complex is actually several species, with intrinsic mating barriers, and diverse ecological strategies (i.e. larval habitat). Pick one species, add a gazillion dollars for rearing labs, another gazillion for irradiation for SIT (or release of some kind of lethal allele carrier, or whatever), and another ten gazillion for implementation, and maybe you could eradicate that one species across the many nations (some at war with each other) where the species lives. Then do it for six more in Africa alone...Plus many more "minor" vector species.
It is possible to envision this kind of eradication, but it is also truthful to say it will never happen, however much as it would be desirable.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 27, 2010 6:13 PM

We going to catch all the mosquitoes then hire legions of insect specialists to point out which we should squish and which we should re-release?

Well, we need to do something to keep 9 milliard people employed.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 27, 2010 6:39 PM

I didn't see anything in windy's link about which whine goes best with kungu cakes,

A good red whine is probably best... Though if you click on the link you'll find a recording of the sound of the swarm, pretty impressive actually.

Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies | July 27, 2010 7:28 PM

I think that we're messing with the ecosystem enough without contemplating the wholesale removal of species. We just don't have enough knowledge to even begin discussing the pros and cons of such an action.

With so many people actually working towards viable options for control of malaria (ecological or medical), it seems a bit pointless to discuss whether we would be better off eradicating all mosquitoes.

Posted by: desertfroglet | July 27, 2010 9:25 PM

Inifnite Human Stupidity @ 33

That's only half the story... the larvae of the Dracunculus are definitely food for some animal.

The larvae parasitise copepopds.

Are the dracunculids paying you or something?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 28, 2010 12:44 AM

Are the dracunculids paying you or something?

Man, I am so sick of these shills for Big Nematoda.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 28, 2010 1:12 AM

Big Nematoda

haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha! lol & shit

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 28, 2010 4:08 AM

The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?"

Definitely. Because then someone might then ask "Humans? What good are they?". It could get embarrassing.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | July 28, 2010 9:16 AM

I seem to recall some talk in Science or Nature magazine about creating a variant of the malaria-vector species that is imune to the malaria parasite, and use some quite subtle genetic strategies to ensure the malaria-resistence gene crowds out all competing genes (I suppose that would be "alleles") until the species no longer carries the malaria parasite. Alas, the reasoning was too complex for me to remember.

Another matter that concerns me is bioinvasion; for instance, the Nile Perch is making the many endemic fish species of Lake Victoria go extinct, and in the absence of predators taking on the larvae, mosquitos form huge clouds above the lake.

Ideally, we could take some Nile Perch parasite (that ONLY attacks thar specific fish) and curb the spread of this invader. A similar approach could work for the myriad other invasive species.

Posted by: jonnymac27 | July 28, 2010 10:03 AM

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in the North East, there's more than just the annoyance and itching from mosquitoes, but the risk of serious illness if you get bitten by them. Where I live, the West Nile Virus is prevalent, as well as the occasional report of EEE (Eastern Equine Encephalitis). To top it all off, ticks carry Lyme disease around here. You can't walk near nature without having to check yourself for ticks, and there's just no avoiding the mosquitoes.

I think the answer is localized repellents that are effective, and don't sweat off so easily. I go hiking in the woods, and even "sweat proof" bug sprays sweat right off, and just leave you more tasty to bugs!

Posted by: Fry | July 29, 2010 12:54 PM

Many of the comments have focused on the feeding habits and vector capability of the adults and the larvae serving as food for other species. Mosquito larvae serve a much more substantial role as a bio-filter in stagnant water ecosystems. They feed by filtering out fine and coarse particulate organic matter. It is this role as an accumulator/converter of biomass rather than as food source that may address the question "what are they good for?".