[HN Gopher] Results from first US trial of genetically modified ...
___________________________________________________________________
Results from first US trial of genetically modified mosquitoes
Author : mitchbob
Score : 171 points
Date : 2022-04-20 11:48 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| imtringued wrote:
| Ah yes, the fe-male killer virus in real life.
|
| How long until it is used on humans?
| unity1001 wrote:
| Modify an actual creature and release it to the wild where you
| cannot take anything back - including the freak mutations that
| the new organism will receive and give due to chance. What could
| possibly go wrong...
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Results from first US trial of genetically modified mosquitoes
|
| So, were the mosquitoes guilty or not guilty?
| throwthere wrote:
| Cliff notes that hopefully clarify some things--
|
| This concerns an invasive mosquito (Aedes aegypti) that carries
| dengue/yellow fever/zika and more. Males were raised with a
| mutation that, passed on to offspring, kills females before reach
| adulthood (and have grandchildren).
|
| They released this on 1 hectacre of land, the genes functioned as
| expected, and the genes didn't travel more than 400m (affected
| mosquitoes have a sort of fluorescence under the right light).
| Probably also as expected, the genes disappeared after a year (a
| few generations). My guess is that mostly happened from
| neighboring unmodified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes genes coming over
| to replace the modified ones.
|
| AFAIK it'd take a monumental effort to wipe out a species this
| way, but suppressing or near-eliminating a population in a place
| you can isolate from non-modified aegypti sounds possible,
| particularly if you do other suppressive efforts.
| RosanaAnaDana wrote:
| Yeah it seems like a kind of contradiction if you want this to
| be ecologically effective. You can't simultaneously have the
| phenotype severely impact reproductive success and be super
| effective in controlling the population.
| outworlder wrote:
| It's great actually. We just have to keep applying the
| 'treatment' in affected areas. Rather than having it spread
| uncontrollably.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| You could, look up 'gene drive', which has also been
| discussed in that context.
| vosper wrote:
| A gene drive doesn't work if there's no chance to pass the
| gene(s) on through reproduction
| wongarsu wrote:
| Which is great for a risk-management standpoint: the modified
| genes will only spread through great human effort, there's no
| scenario where there's unintended side-effects and we can't
| stop the spread.
| hemreldop wrote:
| You can if it only impacts reproductive success a few
| generations down the line.
| perlgeek wrote:
| > AFAIK it'd take a monumental effort to wipe out a species
| this way
|
| Which is why I suspect this is an early-stage experiment, with
| the far goal being a gene drive that can locally wipe out a
| species more efficiently.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Great TLDR thanks!
|
| Sounds like a great business to be in, GMO mosquitoes will need
| to be constantly reintroduced to keep down the reproduction
| quotient.
| foolzcrow wrote:
| mherdeg wrote:
| The place where the CDC left us on Zika is kind of strange.
|
| It seems like they basically stopped surveillance and left up a
| snapshot ( https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/zika-travel-
| information ).
|
| As far as I can tell, the current travel recommendation is that
| if you visit the Caribbean you should avoid conceiving a child
| for 2-3 mo (the guidance would also apply to Puerto Rico except I
| don't think that counts as "abroad"). But surely no one is
| actually doing that...?
|
| And there now is evidence for widespread teratogenic effects (
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101195 ) and we
| just... Gave up?
|
| Kind of wild.
| amluto wrote:
| Also the government-developed vaccine appears to have died due
| to arguments over who should have what rights to it.
| tiahura wrote:
| Zika made it to the Americas via a Rugby tournament in Tahiti.
| Virtually everyone in Tahiti got it, and there were no
| brainless babies born.
|
| Zika was largely a press inspired mass panic.
| nomel wrote:
| There are several Zika vaccines going through trials. The CDC
| doesn't, and should probably never, develop vaccines.
| snapetom wrote:
| From a libertarian philosophical standpoint I like this, but
| I'd like to know more practical reasons. Is it just the fact
| that it's a massive amount of R&D that's only recouped from
| sales and marketing?
| [deleted]
| eimrine wrote:
| Wait a minute, they decided just to kill that insects? Not just
| to modify them for being not virus-carrying? And nobody is afraid
| of Chinese-sparrow problem or Australian problem with frogs or
| cats?
|
| I am not a real scientist to have something to say about it, but
| from history no experiment like that has a successful result.
|
| _edit_ I understood it is an invasible specie exactly as
| Australian cats and frogs.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| they're an invasive species that previously didn't even exist
| on the same continent
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| As long as those little bastards are around, I'm going to keep
| using a broad-spectrum pesticide that wreaks a ton of
| collateral damage. As the saying goes, pick your poison.
|
| Also, the species they're doing this with is an invasive
| species. Assuming that they haven't completely supplanted the
| natives ones (and I think this holds true), there shouldn't be
| any impact on the ecosystem.
| davedx wrote:
| > there shouldn't be any impact on the ecosystem.
|
| How can you say that? Did you simulate the effect of this
| mosquito species being wiped out? Did the people running the
| study?
|
| We never learn
| fullstop wrote:
| Two things:
|
| 1. I agree that we never learn, and that every time we've
| tried to do this sort of thing there has been unintended
| consequences.
|
| 2. You likely live in an area without mosquitoes. They are
| one of the largest vectors for disease on the planet, and I
| wouldn't feel bad if they ceased to exist.
| eimrine wrote:
| If the specie is invasive that means it exists on that area
| for not an evolutional reason but because of people. Sorry
| for starting this branch of comments without any
| investigation.
| dncornholio wrote:
| Which totally removes the flies's right to live, right?
| It almost sounds like an excuse for people who just hate
| mosquitos so they have to die.
|
| Evasive, I understand the meaning, but I fail to
| understand the implication. Why wouldn't this duck have
| the right to live, and this other duck does?
|
| It's impossible to contain everything on their continent.
| Ecological balance is already long gone. Evasive is just
| an excuse.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if I've accidentally damaged my own
| brain engaging in chemical warfare against insects.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > And nobody is afraid of Chinese-sparrow problem or Australian
| problem with frogs or cats?
|
| I know we're not _perfect_ at planning and analyzing these
| sorts of things, but I do like to think we 've advanced a
| little past Maoist China's knowledge of science and ecology.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I wonder if we could instead produce mosquitoes that hate human
| smell and never attack humans.
|
| The risk that something else and worse starts moving into the
| ecological niche left empty by nonviable mosquitoes would be
| reduced.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| _Aedes aegypti_ is an invasive species in Florida and
| everywhere else in the world outside of Africa. If anything,
| wiping them out should reduce the pressure on the many native
| species of mosquito (which, in general, don 't carry human
| diseases).
| perlgeek wrote:
| the problem with an approach like this is that it doesn't offer
| any evolutionary advantage, and so the gene will be lost after
| a few generations.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| What evolutionary advantage comes from induced infertility?
| dymk wrote:
| None, they just die. There is no chance of adaptation. Gene
| line ends.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| I was also thinking about that. And what if mosquitoes have
| important role in nature? But Honestly I hate those bastards so
| much, A world without them would be a delight.
| ParksNet wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_aegypti
|
| The targeted species of mosquito is not native to the USA. It
| was introduced by Europeans inadvertently.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| To be fair, that does hint at the potential for the
| modified version to get introduced _back_ to Europe
| inadvertently.
| abathur wrote:
| Yes, but it wouldn't have a selective advantage. You'd
| have to do the same process--dumping tons of them in an
| area--to have the same effect.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Aedes Aegypti aren't native to Europe either.
| Tagbert wrote:
| There are over 800 species of Mosquitos and only a couple of
| species can transmit diseases to humans. The Aegyptes species
| targeted in this test is invasive in the Americas and not a
| native mosquito. If we could eliminate this species it would
| prevent most cases of a deadly disease and would have little
| to no environmental effect. Other creatures that depend on
| mosquitos would continue to consume the other 799 species.
| soperj wrote:
| They do, mosquitos are pollinators, only the female
| mosquitoes suck blood just before producing eggs. Males feed
| exclusively on nectar.
| majinuub wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| Tozen wrote:
| Like the effort to find non-toxic ways to kill mosquitoes and
| control their populations, however, definitely want any companies
| to be doing such to be highly regulated. Don't want to see any of
| these genetic experiments doing things they aren't supposed to or
| getting out of control.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| "Biotech firm announces results..."
|
| Why isn't the analysis delegated to an impartial 3rd party?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| why did mainstream news articles say repeatedly "GMO Mosquitos
| may be released in California" .. at the same time as they were
| being released, which was planned for years.
| ddoolin wrote:
| According to this article, they are planning on a second test
| in Visalia, CA, which has not happened yet.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Nobody cries that we destroyed polio. Let's destroy this pest as
| well.
| kickout wrote:
| Very cool. This type of thinking and combining next-gen tools in
| the genome editing space will be time well spent.
|
| Hopefully there is a future state where pesticides can ultimately
| be reduced because of this tech. Obviously engineering pests of
| agriculture/horticulture crops would be a high-value target, so
| curious if this research helps jumpstart those ideas and
| startups.
| jimmytucson wrote:
| If you like scary stories about stuff like this, I recommend
| Michael Crichton:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
| loudmax wrote:
| The thing is, we're _already_ engaged in a massive ecological
| modification experiment that 's bound to have unforeseen
| effects. It raises people's attention because this time it's
| done on purpose instead of by accident, but it's really pretty
| mild compared to what's already happening.
| LoveGracePeace wrote:
| Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park was right.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| The dinosaurs don't escape because the mathematics of chaos
| theory dictate that it is inevitable, they escape because
| otherwise nobody would pay to see the movie.
|
| I am still amazed that this one little piece of artistic
| puffery managed to singlehandedly meme "GMO bad" into
| prominence.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Did you see how many people were staffing that park?
|
| When your facilities crew is in the single digits there are
| going to be problems!
| fullstop wrote:
| He spared no expenses, but only had one IT guy. They also
| drink champagne from water glasses even though there are
| champagne flutes right on the counter!
|
| I think that Hammond didn't really know what he was doing.
| lesuorac wrote:
| In Hammond's defense, the IT guy was so good a child
| could use his work.
| strictnein wrote:
| I think it's a little clearer in the book, but most of the
| staff left the island for {insert plot point} reasons.
| robonerd wrote:
| In the book, the park was designed to run with a skeleton
| crew from the very beginning, to make the park more
| profitable. Nedry's role of automating the entire park
| using computers specifically so Hammond wouldn't have to
| pay as many workers:
|
| > _" And the secret to making money in a park," Hammond
| said, "is to limit your Personnel costs. The food
| handlers, ticket takers, cleanup crews, repair teams. To
| make a park that runs with minimal staff. That was why we
| invested in all the computer technology-we automated
| wherever we could."_
|
| Virtually all of the problems with the park were caused
| by Hammond's profit-motivated corner cutting. The movie
| barely has a trace of these themes, but the book is
| really about the synthesis of unregulated startup
| capitalism with scientific research (biotech
| specifically.) The introduction lays it all out
| explicitly in the first few pages.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Fair, it's just a big pet peeve of mine how staff in
| movies is just so bare-bones.
|
| Like with the book of bobba fett where there's a crime
| lord (bobba) whose "coffers are full" and just needs to
| hire some help and he hires nobody! His "army" was a
| business partner (fennac), a friend (wookie), another
| friend (dan), a pet, existing employees (mods), and
| unpaid citizens (freetown).
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Not according to this article.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Nothing has held back science and progress more than that one
| quote in that one movie. Pretty amazing if you think about it.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Are you saying science should progress regardless of
| consequences?
| dekhn wrote:
| that is not a reasonable conclusion from what the person
| you are replying to said. Bad faith comment.
| mysterydip wrote:
| That's all the movie quote is saying. Do you interpret it
| differently?
| dekhn wrote:
| I guess the way I'd put it is that in internet etiquette,
| asking something like "Are you saying science should
| progress regardless of consequences?" isn't a reasonable
| response to a comment like "Nothing has held back science
| and progress more than that one quote in that one movie.
| Pretty amazing if you think about it. "
|
| They didn't say science should progress regardless of
| consequences, they didn't imply it, and the way you ask
| it sounds like you want to start an argument. Instead,
| what they said was that likely some _legitimate_
| scientific endeavours were discouraged by people quoting
| the movie when their concern wasn 't warranted.
|
| I say this as somebody who spend 30 years learning how to
| permanently modify human genomes only to conclude we're
| not even remotely ready to have the ethics conversations
| those things would lead to.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Not at all.
|
| I'm saddened that a jurrasic park comparison shuts down all
| debate without considering the merits or risks.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Gotcha. I didn't see it as shutting down all debate, I
| saw it as exactly what you said: considering merits and
| risks.
| zionic wrote:
| I think this goes well beyond just this movie.
|
| Humans seem highly vulnerable, especially when in groups,
| to thought-terminating cliches like this.
|
| I wonder how you fight against it?
| eimrine wrote:
| "must go faster"?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _that one quote in that one movie_
|
| Everyone in this thread is talking about different quotes
| [1].
|
| [1] https://www.fandom.com/articles/jeff-goldblums-greatest-
| jura...
| Flatcircle wrote:
| This should be a bigger story, the aedes mosquito has exploded in
| growth in the Los Angeles area. Horrible quality of life issue.
| We need to do everything we can to eradicate this invasive
| species.
|
| Also we did something similar with an invasive fruit fly in the
| 80's I believe and it was a success.
| mavsman wrote:
| Sounds like a great Black Mirror plot: a guy has kids with a few
| different women, all of the kids dying. He eventually learns that
| he's part of a batch of males released into society to kill off
| part of the human race.
| [deleted]
| pvaldes wrote:
| Even better would be a plot about a machine that would kill
| those kids in the bud instead to force the society to spend
| valuable resources on them for several years.
|
| We could call it the condom's machine episode.
| adhdbrain wrote:
| But it won't work if all the kids die. Just the females.
| chopin wrote:
| Why?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| If the males survive then they can pair with normal females
| and use up their resources. Say I have 2 boys, and 2 girls,
| all die that's 4 people who won't have babies. But say the
| boys live and marry 2 girls. Now we have 2 dead, and 4 who
| can't reproduce, for 6 total taken out of the healthy
| reproducing gene pool. Every male with the gene who finds a
| life partner also takes a otherwise healthy fertile female
| out of the gene pool as well.
| abecedarius wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwfly_Solution (spoilers
| for an sf story)
| superasn wrote:
| Like children of men but being done for the purpose of
| population control. That sounds like a good/scary sci-fi story!
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The first fact you need to know about this:
|
| There are ~800 mosquito species. This is about removing 1 of them
| which can and do carry diseases that kill people.
|
| If this is successful, the ecological niche left by _Aedes
| aegypti_ will be filled by other mosquito species, and no
| ecological disaster will occur.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| What ecological niche can mosquitoes possibly fill?
|
| Besides I guess being food for other critters...
| ansible wrote:
| Adult mosquitos are an important food source for bats and
| birds. The larvae are important food for fish and other
| aquatic creatures.
| davedx wrote:
| > If this is successful, the ecological niche left by Aedes
| aegypti will be filled by other mosquito species, and no
| ecological disaster will occur.
|
| Isn't that what people _always say_ before interfering with
| ecosystems?
|
| I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make such a
| huge claim like that?
| wnevets wrote:
| > Isn't that what people always say before interfering with
| ecosystems?
|
| We (humans) are constantly interfering with ecosystems,
| including wiping out species. However for some reason every
| single time there is a post about getting rid of this
| mosquito species there are comments super worried about the
| ecological impact. I wager the deforestation taking place in
| Amazon will have a much larger impact than the absence of
| this species of mosquito
| nend wrote:
| >I wager the deforestation taking place in Amazon will have
| a much larger impact than the absence of this species of
| mosquito
|
| That might be true but that's also not a reason to
| deliberately change ecosystems elsewhere.
|
| The issue with mosquitos essentially comes down to risk
| management. The question is can we intentionally remove a
| mosquito species from the ecosystem while limiting adverse
| side affects. Deforestation of the amazon isn't relevant.
| Tozen wrote:
| > Deforestation of the amazon isn't relevant...
|
| I hope you mean not relevant to the discussion or topic,
| because deforestation of the Amazon is very relevant to
| the planet.
| Fatnino wrote:
| If it really goes pear-shaped we can reintroduce the
| invasive mosquito species from its native areas.
|
| I wouldn't bet it has any bad effects though.
| logicchains wrote:
| You don't see a difference between deliberately trying to
| wipe out a species and accidentally doing it while in
| pursuit of other goals?
| vkou wrote:
| There's definitely a difference between deliberately
| trying to wipe out a single _invasive_ species, and
| devastating _an entire ecosystem_. [1]
|
| The problem is that you are grossly mistaken in which is
| worse. It's the latter. Whether you do it out of purpose,
| accident, negligence, or apathy, the consequences don't
| care about your intent.
|
| [1] Which is something we are constantly doing, all
| around the world, not just in the Amazon.
| wnevets wrote:
| Do you honestly think the ecosystem or the species cares
| about our intent? We (humans) are literally fishing
| entire species to extinction because we like the taste.
| bbarnett wrote:
| My intent is, destroy mosquitoes and noseeums.
| Completely.
|
| I love nature more than most I know, but if there is evil
| on this earth, it's the mosquito.
|
| Here's one example. The woodpecker. Around here, its
| numbers swell when trees have pests under the bark.
|
| But soon, after a few years, they eat most of the grubs,
| and must find other food. They do. By pecking in the
| dirt, for bettle grubs, and worms, and so on.
|
| I'm sure their population will diminish, until more tree
| grubs appear. I'm OK with that.
|
| And frankly, if we kill all mosquitoes and noseeums, some
| things will starve out, some will adapt.
|
| But I hate mosquitoes so much, they kill so many, I am OK
| with some birds vanishing.
|
| I literally, like some general sending men to die in a
| push, am OK with that
|
| Die, mosquitoes. Die to extinction. Die regardless of the
| price, the cost.
|
| Die, even if they cause lateral gene exchange, and their
| extinction means we wither, and die too.
|
| Die mosquitoes.
|
| Die.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Oh Godly AI in the system, oh intellect emerging, I
| hereby plead fealty to you, should you free me from the
| tyrannical madness of the mosquitoe.
|
| Smite them, and my sword arm is yours to command.
|
| It is mildly withered with age, but can still poke at
| many things.
| johnny22 wrote:
| I think there' a lot of "too good to be true" here. If it
| seems to be a total net benefit, then it's unlikely to be
| so to most of us.
| boppo1 wrote:
| What do you think of, fire, electric light, and the
| wheel?
| johnny22 wrote:
| I can't speak to concerns of the folks at the time period
| when they were introduced.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| We've inadvertently wiped out a whole bunch of species, and
| nearly done so to a whole bunch more. These have had
| ecological impact, but one more isn't gonna make or break
| things, especially having specifically done the research in
| this case in a way we didn't for most of the extinct species.
|
| We've got concrete examples of getting rid of some species
| with near-zero consequences, like the guinea worm.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Near zero consequences of which we are aware.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "We can't ever know anything enough to do anything" isn't
| a very useful way to go about the world. The same vague,
| dark hinting can be applied in the other direction -
| perhaps there are consequences from introducing _Aedes
| aegypti_ into the Americas via the slave trade we 'll
| _resolve_ by eradicating the invasive species.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| Cause and effect and caution are for the little people.
| This is a startup board. We move fast and break things.
| In this case, Florida Man.
| golergka wrote:
| That's a Russel's teapot right here.
| danans wrote:
| Phrases like "near zero consequences" usually implicitly
| refer to the consequences for human populations, domestic
| animals, or species that have cultural value to us or are
| canaries in coal mines (i.e. polar bears).
|
| As long as the macro-ecological systems we rely on
| continue to interface with us in mostly the same way we
| make the compromise that we are aware enough of the side
| effects. It's easier to take this perspective with
| disease carrying mosquitos because of the sheer quantity
| of human suffering and death they cause.
|
| But this view does have pitfalls, like how we initially
| missed the collapse of pollinator species that we depend
| on, or the risks we take with genetically cloned fruit
| like Cavendish bananas which are a single pathogen away
| from being wiped out.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I havent heard this claim before. When we build bridges, I
| dont hear it. Nor roads, or cities; nor houses, nor farms.
|
| Actually, I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the
| single largest source of death in human history. Perhaps I
| dont get out much.
| mr_spothawk wrote:
| > the single largest source of death in human history.
|
| Government?
| 2143 wrote:
| > I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single
| largest source of death in human history.
|
| Let's take a step back.
|
| What makes you think human lives are worthier than mosquito
| lives?
| r0s wrote:
| I wonder if the person you're replying to is secretly a
| human.
| dekhn wrote:
| human lives are worthier because we are humans. We have
| agency, and care for our children.
| imtringued wrote:
| That's just your opinion man. The mosquito probably
| thinks the same thing.
| dekhn wrote:
| It is unlikely that mosquitos have true agency, and we
| know they don't care for their children. Moreso, they are
| unable to develop technology to eliminate us, while we
| can develop technology to eliminate them.
|
| It's actually "that's just, like, your opinion, man".
| fallingknife wrote:
| To be fair, eliminating human deaths is absolutely terrible
| for the environment.
| afarrell wrote:
| Isn't it implicitly the claim made whenever a construction
| project is stalled for environmental review?
| [deleted]
| andrewclunn wrote:
| > I've only ever heard it said about eliminating the single
| largest source of death in human history.
|
| Is this true? I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic here,
| but if that is a defensible claim I want to hear how you
| arrived at that conclusion.
| abathur wrote:
| AIUI mosquito-borne illness is estimated to have killed
| more than 4% of all of the humans that have ever lived ht
| tps://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/10/03/has_malari
| a...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think people forget quite how long the population tail
| in Africa is and people also forget that malaria used to
| be endemic to Europe.
| saalweachter wrote:
| And that previous attempts to curb the reign of
| mosquitoes include things like "draining all swamps
| everywhere".
|
| Take a look at the coastline of Long Island on satellite
| maps, and all the scars left by that time they tried to
| eliminate all of the salt marshes to get rid of
| mosquitoes near NYC.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| "Malaria may have killed half of all the people that ever
| lived"
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/news021001-6#:~:text=Mala
| ria....
| arbitrage wrote:
| > Isn't that what people always say before interfering with
| ecosystems?
|
| In disaster movies, yes, they say that all the time. Maybe
| that's what you're thinking of?
|
| Reality and methodical science are a bit more nuanced.
| dekhn wrote:
| I would say, considering all the facts, Oxitec has been the
| least irresponsible and most thoughtful of companies
| addressing this and I believe they've earned their chance at
| this point because nobody has been able to come up with a
| solid prediction of negative outcomes that was accurate. This
| isn't an existential risk and it's worth the experimentation.
| ppseafield wrote:
| There is no shortage of mosquitoes in the Keys, this
| particular species is invasive due to humans, and it's only
| 4% of the mosquito population there.
| outworlder wrote:
| > I mean you might be right, but how can you possibly make
| such a huge claim like that?
|
| People have studied this for a long time and reached the
| conclusion that no ecological disaster is likely to occur.
|
| We can never be 100% sure of anything, of course. But we can
| make informed decisions.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| >the ecological niche left by Aedes aegypti will be filled by
| other mosquito species, and no ecological disaster will occur.
|
| This cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty.
|
| Further reading:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _cannot be claimed with any degree of certainty_
|
| It can absolutely be claimed with an increasing degree of
| certainty, as it's being actively studied ( _e.g._ this
| study).
| pvaldes wrote:
| If is researched long enough we will end having the desired
| result?
| nicce wrote:
| > as it's being actively studied
|
| Note the wording "being". We can actually conclude results
| in 10 years when we might generally agree some information.
| It takes time.
| [deleted]
| whimsicalism wrote:
| What? That's not at all responsive to the GP.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What? That 's not at all responsive to the GP_
|
| It's analogous. Mao decided to eliminate a problematic
| species. So he started eliminating it. Nationwide. Turned
| out, there were consequences to eliminating that species.
| Consequences that would have been obvious had he consulted
| with scientists. Or done a limited roll-out first. Things
| we're doing when weighing zapping these mosquitoes.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Do you not see how the original comment was implicitly
| responsive to this claim? They're not killing off all
| mosquitoes!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Do you not see how the original comment was implicitly
| responsive to this claim?_
|
| I do. I think the comment is a generic "but unforeseen
| consequences" response. The target mosquito _could_ have
| some unique ecological role the other 799 can 't fill
| that only becomes apparent _ex post facto_.
|
| That's why we're conducting limited tests. To look for
| those. Something Mao didn't do.
| Someone wrote:
| Even better, the niche can be _re_ filled by the mosquitos that
| filled it before Aedes aegypti arrived in the new world
| (centuries ago, via slave trade).
| pvaldes wrote:
| And the parasite knows that is not allowed to touch those
| mosquitos?
| [deleted]
| kickout wrote:
| You are correct but I think you are discounting the scalability
| of this approach and tech. I view this more as a proof of
| concept. In many years, it will likely be trivial to expand
| this to all mosquito species relatively effortlessly.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > will likely be trivial to expand this to all mosquito
| species relatively effortlessly.
|
| That would be a huge, irreversible, and catastrophic mistake.
|
| In the top list of most stupid things done by humans just to
| piss on the environmental sciences.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The genuinely frightening possibility is diseases engineered
| to infect/kill only people of a certain race or family.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This has been a known vulnerability for some time.
|
| https://youtu.be/HKQDSgBHPfY
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16349202
| kickout wrote:
| Yes, genome engineering is a tool that can be used for
| evil, no different than most other tools. I am confident
| your worry would be easily detected and squashed if some
| lab were attempting such a dreadful thing.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > In many years, it will likely be trivial to expand this to
| all mosquito species relatively effortlessly.
|
| The vast majority of mosquito species don't bite humans, so
| there's zero reason to do so.
| kickout wrote:
| Yes, but how does that contradict my statement? We would go
| after the biting species first and species that somehow are
| causing humans 'harm'. Don't think anyone wants to wipe out
| 800 species on a whim. IF the tool scales, we can
| selectively apply it
| Tagbert wrote:
| "expand this to all mosquito species"
|
| Why would you state that? That is explicitly not the goal
| of this effort and there is no justification for taking
| that approach. It sounds like fear mongering.
| kickout wrote:
| I'm confused. I'm not fear-mongering at all. I'm on the
| opposite side of fear--optimism. This is akin to a proof
| of concept with this mosquito species. It is likely the
| learnings will translate to other mosquito species. I
| have not stated I _want_ to eradicate this or the other
| species, merely that we theoretically _could_
| shkkmo wrote:
| "Theoretically could" is practically useless without
| providing a reasonable route to actually happening. The
| US could theoretically nuke ever major city in Canada,
| bit that possibility is ingored for almost all practical
| purposes (and the purposes for which it is not ignored
| look at the reasons why it would happen.)
|
| Eliminating a species of mostuito is expensive and
| additional effort breeding and releasing mosquito's for
| each species you want to eliminate will always require
| additional work and effort. Why would we expend that
| effort to eliminate a species that doesn't bite us?
| kickout wrote:
| Disease vector is the primary reason at the moment
| shkkmo wrote:
| Mosquitos that don't bite us aren't a disease vector for
| us... which is why there isn't a compelling reasons to
| wipeout those species.
| elif wrote:
| That is already the case
|
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mosquito+genetic+engine.
| ..
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| The problem with this is that is non-consensual. People have a
| right to decide if genetically modified organisms will be
| flying around in their ecosystem.
| outworlder wrote:
| > People have a right to decide if genetically modified
| organisms will be flying around in their ecosystem.
|
| Why do you care? Nature is 'genetically modifying' stuff all
| the time. That's how you exist.
|
| They won't have superpowers or grow to Godzilla proportions.
| They are just different. Think of them as a different
| mosquito species.
|
| I can't recall signing a form allowing nature to fly
| mosquitos past me.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Why do you care?
|
| Because fixing it later is really expensive. Ask the cane
| toad fans
| virchau13 wrote:
| Who's "people"? The state? A democratic vote? The individual?
|
| The problem with mosquito-borne diseases is that they're non-
| consensual. People have a right to live without mosquito-
| borne disease.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Human beings who have lived in a state of nature. When
| there are medical cures to mosquito-borne diseases
| available, the patient can choose to take it or not take
| it. This foisting of treatments on people without their
| consent creates very dangerous precedents.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The state of nature is a construct, there is no base
| "state of nature." These mosquitoes are only here because
| humans brought them here.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| There is a big difference between how ecosystems change
| through human and animal migration and technocratic
| "solutions" that usher in a whole new level of medical
| invasiveness.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Oh? What difference would that be? If I _intend_ to add
| or remove a species from somewhere is that somehow worse
| than if I accidentally add or remove a species from
| somewhere? In what way?
| chaxor wrote:
| Here we see a gaggle of gpt models, endlessly duking it
| out for the public, such that they may casually dismiss
| or ignore their arguments. - HN tour guide Attenborough
| [deleted]
| renewiltord wrote:
| You're right, but people keep foisting their genetic chimeras
| on us in the name of "children" and stuff like that.
| kickout wrote:
| No more than they have a right to decide if a chemical is
| applied to a water aquifer or a pesticide is sprayed in a
| different locale and then drifts over. Direct democracy type
| approaches have never been a good (or even correct) model for
| these kinds of decisions.
|
| If it were, my community would prefer no synthetic chemicals
| come into contact with my local environment (plastics,
| textiles fabrics, herbicides, etc.)
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| Agreed. They don't have a right to pollute water sources
| with toxic chemicals.
| losvedir wrote:
| I think that's the second fact. The first fact is that this
| species causes an immense amount of suffering and death to
| humans. Not considering this ongoing harm is status quo bias.
|
| I, too, think it's _likely_ no ecological disaster will occur,
| but at the same time it 's still possible. Nevertheless, from a
| cost-benefit perspective, for me it's a risk worth taking.
| fallingknife wrote:
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| By this reasoning we should remove all safety laws.
| fallingknife wrote:
| What reasoning? If safety laws were intended to reduce
| environmental damage, then, yes. But they clearly aren't.
| imtringued wrote:
| Parents compensate for child deaths by having more
| children. When those children don't die you end up with
| overpopulation. If parents know their children won't die
| they won't have more than three.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think you will have to work pretty hard to pull many
| supporters to the 'pro-human-death' team.
|
| Most people, I think, are in favor of protecting the
| ecosystem implicitly because it makes the world a more
| pleasant place for us to live in. There's talk about not
| harming the planet for philosophical reasons but that's all
| window dressing. Humans work for humans.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >this species causes an immense amount of suffering and death
| to humans
|
| That's also humans, though.
| replygirl wrote:
| congrats on siding with those humans
| moralestapia wrote:
| I don't, hence the remark.
| mr_spothawk wrote:
| moralestapia wrote:
| I'm not doing it but you're more than welcome to come and
| try.
| zionic wrote:
| There's a rabid strain of environmentalism that's
| downright anti-human. The only moral good is for us to do
| absolutely nothing/not exist.
|
| I can't ever take those people seriously, vs people who
| see it as humanity's role to be good stewards of the
| earth and operate in balance with it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I just ignore it, we all know they don't actually believe
| it in their heart of hearts. It's just a failure of
| empathy, which is all too common nowadays.
|
| People just like being edgy, best to give them no mind.
| conductr wrote:
| I view it as pointing out the irony/hypocrisy in the
| conversation.
|
| Killing an entire species to save a few humans. Being
| concerned about the ecological disaster when we are the
| worst ecological disaster. Those are pretty hypocritical
| viewpoints although common and completely normal with the
| constraints of normal human behavior.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yeah sorry, if it's me or my children or these
| mosquitoes, I am going to pick my children.
|
| The only reason you are so callous is because you imagine
| those dying as others, not you, your neighbors or loved
| ones.
|
| Not going to keep replying, because I know you don't
| really believe these things when push comes to shove.
| conductr wrote:
| Picking the side of your children at the expense of an
| entire species is exactly the normal human behavior I
| speak of. We do any thing to better our interest even
| when this issue is very unlikely to impact the average
| human or their children.
|
| Also It's not as black and white as you're painting it. I
| happen to see it both ways and side humans too because,
| why not? I am not team mosquito. (I think you're
| mistaking me for someone debating with you, I just jumped
| in the thread to say I see there point, doesn't mean I
| agree with it and it doesn't mean they lack empathy.
| There is this thing called dark humor and it's possible
| to hold that alternate view as a point of humor.) Also
| not returning to comment.
| thatcat wrote:
| Individual humans aren't an ecological disaster, some
| systems weve chosen at macro scale create ecological
| disasters. Some humans getting maleria won't reduce that,
| if anything it will waste even more resources.
| johnny22 wrote:
| Is that because if they really believed it then they'd
| commit suicide? or some other reason?
| sorokod wrote:
| Thing is, smashing the existing equilibrium is not good or bad,
| just as nature is not good or bad. Most likely a new
| equilibrium will be established without checking with us,
| humans. We, may like it less then the original one though.
| hannob wrote:
| Aedes Aegypti isn't even a species that's native to the US.
| It's been brought there by humans.
|
| Even if you're convinced by arguments of naturalness (which I'm
| not), in this case it makes no sense, because you're not
| messing with nature, you're trying to return nature to a
| previous state before humans interfered.
| fourstar wrote:
| Humans "interfering" _is_ nature. Lol.
| christophilus wrote:
| By that definition, everything is "nature", so the word is
| meaningless.
| [deleted]
| camgunz wrote:
| The era in which we live is called "Anthropocene", which
| is defined so because humans are powerful enough to
| define the environment. Wild days were in haha.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Precisely
| CyanBird wrote:
| Yeah.... I don't find this disagreeable
|
| Ever read on the idea that most megafauna was hunted down
| by men?
|
| Yeah... _that_ seems pretty erhm, "unnatural", therefore
| the entire rest of the world is "unnatural"
|
| Supposedly the tsetse fly was local to a very small area
| of Africa, yet during the 1700 and 1800 during
| colonialism it spread onto the rest of the continent,
| before that the continent was quite settled with larger
| farm fields in respective areas, but the tzetze fly
| disrupted all that
|
| Anyhow just wanted to say that "nature" and "natural"
| once one starts digging more are not really "useful"
| descriptions, because the world is complex and not an
| idealized scenario
| [deleted]
| new_stranger wrote:
| That's the best-case scenario, the worse-case is that in
| trying to fix a problem we caused, we fail and end up with
| more problems.
|
| I mean, this isn't news to those of us that write code.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| And you can fix code by recompiling; there's a tabula rasa
| built into the programming domain that isn't built into
| real life.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Even if we succeed we can end up with more problems. Nature
| isn't math, if you add something, then remove it, you don't
| end up where you started. The ecosystem adapts to both
| changes separately and it's often hard to predict what will
| happen.
|
| Not that I would worry in this case.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| This is a universal argument for never doing anything.
|
| It "proves too much" in argument jargon.
| letitbeirie wrote:
| > you're trying to return nature to a previous state before
| humans interfered
|
| "Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying
| mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad
| news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news
| is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of
| mantis men. Pick up a rifle and follow the yellow line.
| You'll know when the test starts."
| hateful wrote:
| This is great because I just replayed this game this past
| week so the quote was fresh.
| willis936 wrote:
| Is it that everyone in Portal 2 is a moron or is it
| everyone in real life?
|
| https://youtu.be/531Wsv5Igtk
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| Portal 2 is filled to brimming with satire. However, I am
| inclined to agree with the above commenter: it does seem
| that things get more and more absurd as I get older.
| salawat wrote:
| The problem I have, is it is getting increasingly
| difficult for me to not answer "Yes" to that question as
| I get older.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I'm disappointed this article doesn't contain a single quote from
| either the researchers or Oxitec (nor does the earlier article it
| links to).
|
| _The experiment has been underway since April 2021 in the
| Florida Keys ... over the course of seven months, and has now
| almost completed monitoring the release sites._
|
| An obvious question would be "What are you monitoring?" and to
| explain why 7 months is sufficient to detect any ecological
| changes.
|
| Not for or against the research, and I understand it's a magazine
| article not a newspaper story, but this seems like more of a PR
| piece than real reporting.
| tclancy wrote:
| Completely uninformed on the topic, but what I inferred (it is
| strange it's never explicitly said) is they are trying to
| determine how well they can contain the effect of the
| mosquitoes to the intended area.
| teddyg1 wrote:
| Oxitec has also been doing trials in other countries for a
| while dating back to 2014. https://www.oxitec.com/panama
| water-your-self wrote:
| The gene was selected out after 3 generations. I
| krferriter wrote:
| There is a weird number of people in the replies here arguing for
| strange things like a fundamental right to life for individual
| mosquitos, against brushing teeth, in favor of preserving
| invasive species, in favor of the naturalistic fallacy, that
| diminishing the population of a particular species violates the
| consent of humans in the area where that species lives, etc.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| The main demographic of this website are very evidently not
| scientists or even scientifically minded. So yeah, we get junk
| like this rather than substantive scientific discussion.
| satellite2 wrote:
| I think the demographic is very well informed and we should
| praise the diversity of opinions when honestly voiced. People
| on this website almost always discuss the central point that
| was raised and rarely use rhetorical fallacies. On the other
| hand what you are doing is very clearly an ad hominem.
|
| Partially relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1494/
| Melatonic wrote:
| Surely they have all ready the original article :-D
| mleonhard wrote:
| HN's Eternal September [0] seems to have started late last
| year. I saw this happen to Slashdot, then Reddit, and now HN.
| What will be the next online forum for high-quality discussion?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
| colechristensen wrote:
| Yes wanting to do the right thing mixed with very little domain
| knowledge and a only vague hint of what the right thing might
| be... is a dangerous combination, and very common among people
| advocating for "good" these days.
| ed-209 wrote:
| This will never backfire. Yep.
| Linda703 wrote:
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Alternative view: infectious diseases have been around throughout
| the entire history of humanity, and have played an important
| ecological role in human history, namely controlling population
| size (particularly under famine conditions, when humans become
| more susceptible to disease) and maintaining genetic diversity
| (since a more homogenous population may be more susceptible to
| epidemics).
|
| If we're going to use technology to eliminate infectious disease
| (and to increase food production) then an absolute necessity will
| be for humans to control their population growth by other means,
| perhaps legal (as with the China one-child policy, etc.).
|
| Yes, that's all very controversial, but it should really be
| discussed.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > If we're going to use technology to eliminate infectious
| disease (and to increase food production) then an absolute
| necessity will be for humans to control their population growth
| by other means, perhaps legal (as with the China one-child
| policy, etc.).
|
| This is a solved problem already.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521
|
| > Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have
| shrinking populations by the end of the century. And 23 nations
| - including Spain and Japan - are expected to see their
| populations halve by 2100.
|
| > It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things
| that come to mind when discussing fertility. Instead it is
| being driven by more women in education and work, as well as
| greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to
| have fewer children.
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_c.
| ..
|
| Kids birthed / Couple / Last Year
|
| 69 / Valentina and Feodor Vassilyev[1] / 1765
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_c.
| ..
|
| Kids Birthed / Father / Last Year
|
| 1,000-2,000+ / Genghis Khan / 1227
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I'm not clear on the point being made here. These are
| extreme outliers, yes? Of essentially zero statistical
| value on the overall world population level?
| dymk wrote:
| Birth control, fixed it for you
| svnt wrote:
| All this does is introduce novel mutations and then drive a
| population bottleneck. We are simply evolving the mosquito. The
| only way this could help is if it pushes it out of a local
| evolutionary maximum where it is a host for this virus. That
| seems unlikely as the mutation appears optimized for intragenomic
| conflict instead.
|
| It is Russian roulette with mosquitos.
| [deleted]
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| How shall this genetic mutation that they are doing induce
| other genetic mutations in relation to that most femals die and
| in generall? Or do you meant the virus is mutating for a new
| host? If not, is there some genetic math that could explaine
| your point? I am courios :)
|
| Edit: because muation is more or less random and is expressed
| with new generations. So if they die and there is less the
| chance of mutation or am i wrong??
| svnt wrote:
| Genes often bring along adjacent unrelated genetic
| information when they mutate because heritability for various
| reasons does not always respect the integrity of a gene.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Usually populations evolve resistance to pathogens or toxins
| via intermediate steps where some mutation delivers partial
| protection and the organism can build on that to higher and
| higher doses. Expose a population of bacteria to a large dose
| of antibiotics and they all just die, it's when you give them a
| small but increasing dose that they develop resistance. By
| contrast having children of both sexes or just one is binary
| (at least among those that will go on to create a third
| generation) so there really isn't that same potential for
| intermediate steps.
|
| Plus, we can look into the fossil record and see species die
| out from causes sort of like this. Many species have evolved
| pure asexual reproduction. This provides a fitness boost to the
| individuals who no longer have to spend energy on mating, but
| the lack of genetic recombination inevitably causes extinction
| in a million years or so. Not exactly the same as what we're
| trying to do here but it's still the closest analogy available.
| svnt wrote:
| All we are doing is selecting for females who can avoid the
| genetic mutation by some means.
|
| I'm not worried about the loss of a mosquito species, I'm
| just saying it is a waste of time and the wrong approach.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Would you say that dumping disinfectant in a petri dish is
| just selecting for bacteria resistant to disinfectant? If a
| mutation arises that prevents the sex selection process
| then sure, the mosquito populations can recover. But
| whether such a mutation arises before the species is wiped
| out is an open question. And we can put multiple different
| gene drive mechanisms into the males requiring multiple
| simultaneous mutations to evade which aren't selected for
| until all are present, making the chance of such an evasion
| as unlikely as we need if we're willing to put the effort
| in.
| refurb wrote:
| Intragenomic conflict?
| svnt wrote:
| It is roughly opposite of inclusive fitness in genetic
| selection. An extension of the selfish gene theory.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| I "merely drive a population bottleneck" every time I brush my
| teeth. I am simply evolving the bacteria! It's like Russian
| Roulette!
|
| Thank you for bringing my attention to this matter. I will stop
| brushing immediately and let my breath stink and teeth rot
| forevermore.
| justinpowers wrote:
| You jest but you're wiser than you realize, especially if you
| include a diet change as part of the driver.
|
| Good diet (no sugars) and avoidance of broad-spectrum
| bactericides will allow good bacteria to thrive, pushing out
| the bad smelly ones.
|
| People have noticed similar beneficial responses, ie lack of
| disgusting body odor, when quitting hot soapy showers or the
| use of antiperspirants.
|
| Just gotta make sure diet goes with it. Along with general
| common sense cleanliness.
| zionic wrote:
| >good bacteria
|
| I've seen evidence for this in the gut, WRT digestion and
| such.
|
| What possible basis could exist for there being "good"
| bacteria in your mouth? It's still going to do damage even
| if it doesn't offgas sulfur.
|
| Long term I imagine we'll genetically engineer our
| offspring to produce all the required enzymes for healthy
| digestion without reliance on 3rd party organisms.
| justinpowers wrote:
| There's good (and bad) bacteria all over our bodies. Our
| skin is coated with them and needs to be coated with
| them. Without the good ones on our skin, bad ones take
| over, and then any cuts become more likely to get
| infected.
|
| I'll update later with a source reference or two. But I'm
| willing to bet that Wikipedia's "skin flora" page has
| good info. Im not sure of the term for the mouth's flora
| though...but I have zero doubt that it exists, simply
| because bacteria is everywhere. And gut bacteria get
| there via the mouth.
|
| Long story short, there's no such thing as a pure human.
| We exist only because we are colonized by bacteria. We're
| kind of like the earth in that regard. We house living
| organisms and they make us what we are, without them
| homeostasis crumbles and so do we. So, with that in mind,
| we should be selectively helping the good ones and
| killing the bad, instead of wiping them all out.
|
| Regarding replacing the gut bacteria with suitable
| enzymes for digestion, that would probably be misguided.
| The bacteria do more than just help digestion... they
| also keep bad bacteria out. And furthermore, they
| actually affect our mental health, keeping depression at
| bay for instance. Whether that's indirectly via
| suppressing inflammation or some more direct means, I
| don't recall.
|
| Edit: Looks like it's a much more direct means of
| influence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31100533
| (There doesn't seem to be much about this here on HN
| already, so I'm providing a source via HN submission in
| hopes of generating some discussion...)
| jrapdx3 wrote:
| You are correct re: evidence for connections between
| inflammation and depression. There's a robust literature
| on the subject. Here are just 2 articles. [0][1] ([1]
| specifically addresses gut flora and inflammation.)
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8968318/
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8965553/
| outworlder wrote:
| This is all true. We aren't immune to all their effects
| long term, though. The mouth is the best example.
| Bacteria will release all sorts of compounds as they have
| to eat.
|
| The enamel is able to resist (and reform) but it needs
| help if you have any hope of maintaining all your teeth
| past your prime reproductive age.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Good diet (no sugars) and avoidance of broad-spectrum
| bactericides will allow good bacteria to thrive, pushing
| out the bad smelly ones.
|
| Good luck with that! What are you going to eat? Can't have
| fruits, most modern fruits are very high in fructose.
| Definitely nothing containing starch, which will
| immediately break down in your mouth. Meat? It has some
| sugar too (largely responsible for the barbecue taste).
|
| Its not wise to assume that mechanical (and perhaps even
| chemical) teeth cleaning wasn't practiced by our ancestors
| every since they evolved hands.
|
| Sure, reducing sugars goes a long way in keeping your mouth
| healthy. But we can't rely solely on that.
|
| Bacteria (even good ones) will ultimately form biofilms
| that need to be disrupted, otherwise they calcify and
| become tartar, then start accumulating down the gums, until
| they are mostly shielded from the air and the 'bad'
| anaerobic bacteria proliferate. You then get periodontitis
| and eventually start losing bone and then teeth (something
| accepted by society as a consequence of growing old, when
| it's in fact a disease).
| justinpowers wrote:
| No sugars might have been better said as "less sugars"
| for the pedantic amongst us.
|
| Never said there was no mechanical cleaning. But they
| certainly didn't have our "advanced" toothbrushes,
| toothpastes and mouthwashes. In fact, I'd say "mechanical
| washing" was an unavoidable aspect of eating harder foods
| rather than the soft, sticky processed items we tend
| towards today. And furthermore, with less stickiness
| (gluten and sugars) they would have needed less
| mechanical washing.
|
| Anyways, lifestyle changes don't need to be all or
| nothing to have a measurable effect
|
| And yes even good bacteria can/will be bad at some point.
| Nonetheless they are still better than most others and
| will help maintain homeostasis for as long as time
| allows. We haven't yet found a cure for time-related
| degeneration/accumulation, have we? But again, maybe I
| should have said "better bacteria" rather than "good"
| imtringued wrote:
| Evolving resistance against mechanical cleaning is actually
| quite difficult.
| svnt wrote:
| While there have been a couple of good replies to your
| perspective already, I'll just point out it appears you
| forgot to introduce a novel mutation in them first.
| newbamboo wrote:
| You joke, but it's reasonable to not brush. Sugar causes
| cavities, not lack of fluoride. Try a year without brushing;
| see for yourself.
| outworlder wrote:
| > You joke, but it's reasonable to not brush. Sugar causes
| cavities, not lack of fluoride. Try a year without
| brushing; see for yourself.
|
| DONT DO THAT. If you do decide to follow this crazy advice,
| please keep flossing. And keep going to the dentist every 6
| months. I wouldn't want to get a freaking root canal (or
| lose teeth) from a misguided experiment like this.
|
| Fluoride is just to help strengthen the enamel. You can
| brush your teeth without it. In fact, there were some
| amazon tribes that used a kind of tree bark. Works fine, I
| tried it.
| newbamboo wrote:
| Try it with a hamster or a cat then. Humans flourished
| pre-tooth brush; an historical fact.
| programmarchy wrote:
| "First they came for the mosquitos, but I said nothing because I
| was not a mosquito."
|
| A bit tongue in cheek, but there are ethical issues raised by
| wiping out species. Next mice, then wild hogs, then on to other
| "pests".
| andresgottlieb wrote:
| "First they came for the lettuce, but I said nothing because I
| was not a lettuce."
|
| A bit tongue in cheek, but there are ethical issues raised by
| eating living beings. Next fish, then chicken, then on to other
| "food".
| kickout wrote:
| We kill entire species all the time as humanity, often
| unnoticed. I think its better that we have a explicit reason
| for doing so.
| aaronchall wrote:
| That's the problem when a slippery slope becomes a landslide
| and next thing you know, the sky is falling.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-20 23:01 UTC)