News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Microbe extinction

Started by TomFoolery, November 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jonb

Human can be seen as separate from nature, because of the new caricaturisation of the Anthropocene.

A good argument for not introducing a new biological agent into an ecosystem is that we do not know how that ecosystem works so the effect is unpredictable.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 12:31:52 PM
Human can be seen as separate from nature, because of the new caricaturisation of the Anthropocene.

A good argument for not introducing a new biological agent into an ecosystem is that we do not know how that ecosystem works so the effect is unpredictable.
What's that have to do with removing a bad life form when we do know how the system works? Nobody's talking about doing it today!
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Hakurei Reimu

Why kill bad pathogens? For the same reason we would kill these dudes:



You could make the exact same argument of daleks keep the human population in control as well as pathogens keeping animals under control. Killing an endogenous dalek population of a planet would also mess up the ecosystem of that planet; the populations are sure to change.

But, of course, you kill the damn daleks at each opportunity. This is because your base instinct as a living being is to preserve your own life even at the expense of others, and if the daleks have to die to free you from the suffering they incur, so be it. Same with disease organisms. Their survival comes at the expense of human life and comfort. Fuck that noise and kill the bastards.

(Besides, is not as if there aren't plenty to take their place.)
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hydra009

#63
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 05, 2015, 10:49:31 AMIf we had the ability to eradicate mosquitos and chose to do so because they are disease carrying pests the consequences would be extensive because there are a lot of creatures that eat mosquitos and their larva.
Not exactly.  Only a few mosquito species spread disease to humans, so it wouldn't be necessary to eradicate all mosquito species.  But even if they were all wiped out, it would cause some ecological problems, but not especially severe ones.

"Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the 'collateral damage' felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn't buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito's case."

Hydra009

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 05, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
But, of course, you kill the damn daleks at each opportunity.
I am a Dalek.  I am a DALEK.  I am alive.  I am your enemy.

Mercy.  MERCY!  MERCY.  I show mercy.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 05, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
Not exactly.  Only a few mosquito species spread disease to humans, so it wouldn't be necessary to eradicate all mosquito species.  But even if they were all wiped out, it would cause some ecological problems, but not especially severe ones.

"Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the 'collateral damage' felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn't buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito's case."

Interesting article! Sounds like it would be better for humanity if we eradicated the mosquito.

jonb

You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.

Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors. 

Hydra009

#67
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.
I'll take 'things everyone already knows' for $100, Alex.

QuoteWho needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
Mad scientists in action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

Stop these madmen before it's too late!

And no, it's not all that interesting that new technology would be leveraged to wipe out longstanding diseases or disease vectors.  Only a sociopath would look at mass human suffering and not want to alleviate it.

jonb

Sorry got interrupted halfway through posting.
The article says that mosquitoes are not significant pollinators and would be replaced by other species with little or no effect. However the female mosquito in taking blood allows the mosquito to both be small in size and also very active. This can be very important especially in colder climates, sure there might be other pollinators but if they are only getting their energy from pollination they are going to be more limited in number and less active. In the less diverse ecosystems of the northern hemisphere that could on its own represent a significant problem over time.
Also given the fact of the number of diverse ecosystems there are I wonder if the article is talking about actual tests on all of these with and without the presence of mosquitoes and the effects of that over time which would be hugely expensive, or is only resting its case on the fact there are other pollinators.
It does not look like good science to me.

peacewithoutgod

#69
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
But they do allow you to use the Internet ;-)
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

jonb

Don't worry our governments are keeping tabs.

Mermaid

Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:20:05 PM
That shouldn't surprise.  When people first domesticated animals, they lived with us ... even after we lived in villages, the animals were brought inside (there were no separate barns).  So under those conditions, humans and their animals shared a lot of bugs back and forth, and needed to develop immunity to each others favorite bugs.  Today we usually start getting an intestinal ecology by swallowing dirt as small children .. and getting worms from the feces of our cats and dogs.
It doesn't surprise me. It's just interesting.

A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Baruch

Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.

Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.

Some of the people posting here ... are Daleks ;-)  Davros after all, was a mad scientist.  Also the Daleks stand in for the Nazis in an era when the Germans are our allies.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 05, 2015, 03:38:06 PM
But they do allow you to use the Internet ;-)

I must suck Feynman's %&%^$ to be allowed on the Internet?  Where do I line up?  No ... the NSA allows you on the Internet.  Otherwise they wouldn't let you self-expose all you meta-data for their benefit.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Mermaid on November 05, 2015, 05:17:50 PM
It doesn't surprise me. It's just interesting.

Early animal husbandry ... lord of the flies ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.