Comment by scabarott
8 years ago
>I'm actually very interested in hearing concrete ideas of what the unintended consequences could be and their cost, from actual experts.
Not all unintended consequences can be predicted let alone have a cost attached to them. In fact by definition unintended consequences are those we cannot forsee or prepare for in any meaningful way. Of course virtually any action has some unintended consequences but I think what the naysayers are saying in this case is that with something as complicated and untested as this, there is potential for massively negative unpredictable outcomes (maybe a new invasive species, maybe aedes aegypti perform some as yet unknown ecological function and their loss would be massively detrimental in ways we can't as yet predict etc), and there's some justification for that from human experience. This was the entire premise for movies like Jurassic park
You mean you can't foresee the unforeseen? No!
But you're right. The moral of the story to Jurassic Park pretty much was "Just because you can science against nature, doesn't mean you should."
But to be fair to, ae. aegypti is technically invasive, to the entire USA. Ridding it TECHNICALLY is a good thing for the local ecosystems. However, I personally don't think the method they're going about it will be as effective as hoped plus it seems like a pandora's box of food chain chaos.
That's kind of where global warming would actually help. Due to the life span and mating cycle, along with egg hardiness, if they have a good drought for about 8-10 months. And then they do extensive hormone pupacide and larvacide treatment. They can nearly eradicate the entire nearby population in one year's time. However, a. aegypti have like an average 800m migration distance within their lifespan (if I remember that right). Thus, they can then do perimeter containment of certain areas to ensure no new migrations into their area. But instead, let's play god and engineer bacteria to fuck with reproductive systems.