Stop Insect Sex

[Endocrom]

Guess I'll jump on the bandwagon. Can't help but think of this line:

"Sometimes science is ******* wrong and gives us **** we don't need...they might as well go, 'Hey, we made cancer airborne and contagious! You're welcome! We're science: we're all about the coulda, not the shoulda.'"
--Patton Oswalt

 

[lunavixen]

Yeah, this isn't a good thing, especially if it can (and it would) affect bees, this'd screw the ecology of areas up really fast, yeah, house flies and fruit flies are a pain in the butt, it'd be easier to modify plants to repel insects that attack (like fruit flies), well, I think it might... but i'm not going to argue this again, I just spent 4 days arguing about GM, not going to start again.

 

[Teoes]

Just so long as someone, somewhere is working on the chemical that makes insects randy and fertile, so that they can reverse the inevitable cosmic damage this particular pursuit will result in.

 

[OneCatch]

Am I the only one here thinking of the Genophage from Mass Effect after reading this post?

I thought of the genophage too, but this way is a lot better, since it doesn't lead to millions of stillbirths. It also reminds me of the reproduction blockers in Half-Life 2.

Not to mention Children of Men.
This does not seem like a good idea unless they can come up with some kind of intrinsic limiter on it (like the dispersant degrades in a few days and loses effect, or something) so that it only affects specifically what's targeted.

Mind you, they've only done it via individual modification so far, so we don't need to start panicking yet!

 

[Lightknight]

Hey, as long as they develop some way of doing the same thing to spiders, I'm all for it.

Spiders are amazingly beneficial to us even if they do make grown men scream like little girls. So are some types of insects.

I wouldn't miss mosquitos, disease ridden pests that they are. But I am concerned about the unforeseen impacts that this kind of pesticide and any pesticide could be having on mankind.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm sorry (I really am) that people are dying to disease and what not, but it's the natural order of things. What you're basically asking for is that we kill of millions..nay, probably billions of insects that are essential parts of the ecosystem.

This kind of argument generally fails to consider humans as part of the ecosystem too. We are just one animal waging war on our opponents. Just because we're more efficient at killing them doesn't make our actions any less part of evolution. It really depends on which insects we attempt to wipe out. Could we wipe out a single species and leave it at that or would any viable pesticide inevitably extinct other less harmful types?

Your argument that we're side stepping natural selection and that these kinds of deaths are necessary is unfounded. Primarily in that we have already been side stepping natural selection in almost every way imagineable. If there comes a time where we have to impose stringent population laws then we will cross that bridge when it comes but our ability to side step natural selection IS something that makes our species more fit for survival.

Understand this, if we never overcome our limited resources issue via technology and take no actions to reduce populations when necessary, then that limited resource issue will become natural selection in and of itself. There's no reason to artificially maintain natural selection at this stage of the game. This could get rid of diseases that are becoming resistent to our medication. Not doing this now could wipe out all of us later or just leave us very vulnerable.

 

[Tiamat666]

doing stuff like this to nature doesn't sound like a good idea

It's not. Except if we could isolate the chemical castration to only affect wasps, moths and mosquitoes. I would be totally OK with that.

 

[Lightknight]

doing stuff like this to nature doesn't sound like a good idea

It's not. Except if we could isolate the chemical castration to only affect wasps, moths and mosquitoes. I would be totally OK with that.

We have to be somewhat careful not to wipe out a significant amount of the food supply for animals like birds and bats. Some insets in particular, like ants, would be horrible to wipe out.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If they follow through with this, I would like to see Killer Bees stopped and the mosquito population in my hometown brought down to reasonable levels. Still, I see a lot of potential for disaster here.

 

[Lightknight]

If they follow through with this, I would like to see Killer Bees stopped and the mosquito population in my hometown brought down to reasonable levels. Still, I see a lot of potential for disaster here.

It'd have to be perfect. No impact to humans and specific mosquito species.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

doing stuff like this to nature doesn't sound like a good idea

It's not. Except if we could isolate the chemical castration to only affect wasps, moths and mosquitoes. I would be totally OK with that.

Even if it's ontly wasps, moths and mosquitoes, it's going to be extremely dangerous. Even those species have a place in the natural balance of things, as food for other animals, as pollinators, to help with the disposal of dead material, or even just to keep the population of other creatures (including humans) in check.

And using natural selection as an argument either way is flawed here. You shouldn't ever forget that natural selection on this scale takes place over a huge amount of time.
Humans destroying an ecosystem or a species in a few years time is something that nature can't just repair itself from quickly.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

So we've made a bioweapon that could stifle the breeding of an entire group of animals that are vital to the planet's continued existence at a time when bees, part of that group of animals and arguably the most important animal when it comes to plant reproduction, are dying and vanishing en masse.

WHY IS THIS BEING TREATED AS A GOOD THING?!

Am I the only one here thinking of the Genophage from Mass Effect after reading this post?

No you are not.

 

[BlackStar42]

ten years from now when this crap filters into the oceans and kills off all the seafood, you pricks are going to look very foolish.

It only affects insects. Your precious fish will be fine.

 

[spartan231490]

ten years from now when this crap filters into the oceans and kills off all the seafood, you pricks are going to look very foolish.

It only affects insects. Your precious fish will be fine.

The article said it affects arthropods, which include not only insects but also crustaceans and arachnids. Did I also mention that arthropods make up roughly 80% of all described animal species on the planet? Really, how do you expect to participate in a scientific discussion and not only be ignorant of what the primary classification means, but not even bother to look it up?

 

[Simca]

It's impossible to say that the ecological consequences to removing a specific pest (like the mosquito) would be entirely negative or even overall negative.

Natural selection is not inherently perfect. It has repeatedly (and will in the future I'm sure) create ecological situations that are unstable and will fall apart. I'm not saying that this should be used over large areas or without proper research, simulations/modeling, and restrictions, but rampant fear mongering over future potentials that you have absolutely zero fucking evidence for is not useful.

 

[spartan231490]

It's impossible to say that the ecological consequences to removing a specific pest (like the mosquito) would be entirely negative or even overall negative.

Natural selection is not inherently perfect. It has repeatedly (and will in the future I'm sure) create ecological situations that are unstable and will fall apart. I'm not saying that this should be used over large areas or without proper research, simulations/modeling, and restrictions, but rampant fear mongering over future potentials that you have absolutely zero fucking evidence for is not useful.

That may all be true, but it's a pretty damn good bet that wiping out 80% of all described species on the planet will have a negative impact on the environment. Am I the only one in this thread that knows what arthropod means? It's a phylum including insects, arachnids, and crustaceans and it includes roughly 80% of all described species on the planet.

 

[Tanakh]

I would like to see Killer Bees stopped

Brah... this is probably the worst idea I have seen in this forums in quite a while (and have just come from the thread about a killed girl in Harlem where someone posted "good, one tranny less" or something along the lines), it's probably just due misinformation tough, so here we go:

- As the science guys said before (as an ex-mathematician i have a love/hate relationship with true scientist), this has low risk for a "OMG IT WENT WRONG" disaster. You would usually use a virus to infect the population and virus usually are very specific, it would kill the targeted species fast, no much time to mutate... i still think its a retarded idea to erase species of insects, but whatevs, it can be done more or less safely.

- What you are advocating tough is to kill all the motherfucking Apis mellifera species. You see, "Killer Bees" and the rest of the Honey Bees are the fucking same species, is like you wanted to eliminate white males (because... duno, they can't dance for shit) and developed a virus to make Humans not interested in fucking (which is actually quite doable TBH, atm we could do it if we wanted). You are basically advocating for killing all the honey bees

- While honey bees are not the only pollinator insect, they are the main one in our crops and the ecosystems where they live, killing them would cause global hunger and extinction (might be massive, might be small scale, not sure)

Thus... no brah, just no.

Also, killer bees in america (especially in north america) won't attack you unless they get trapped in your hair, you do sudden movements against them or you are near their home. If you mind your business and leave their hive, you are golden

 

[Tanakh]

The article said it affects arthropods, which include not only insects but also crustaceans and arachnids. Did I also mention that arthropods make up roughly 80% of all described animal species on the planet? Really, how do you expect to participate in a scientific discussion and not only be ignorant of what the primary classification means, but not even bother to look it up?

The safety valve would be the vector, not the modification. You see, AFAIK to mess with the RNA of some creep on the field you usually infect it with a designed virus to do whatever you want, virus are usually highly specific and unless they mutate in exactly the correct way they should stick with their targets.

Now, if they do mutate and start affecting all arthropods, lolololol, we are soo screwed, dibs on the last shrimp!! :3

Our scientific friends in the tread are very optimistic, I would remind them that AFAIK every fucking species has it's virus and none started with it... that is 9.7 million known species have been successfully made hosts and zero haven't... chances of virus finding a way to propagate seem pretty good to me.

 

[Denamic]

I'm sorry (I really am) that people are dying to disease and what not, but it's the natural order of things. What you're basically asking for is that we kill of millions..nay, probably billions of insects that are essential parts of the ecosystem.

The ecosystem(s) is/are already messed up, and this is a way to unmess it up. Modern agriculture causes an abundance of insects, because they now have a new and abundant source of food. In other words, we've already inadvertently interfered in natural selection. To combat this, we use pesticides, which not only kills billions of insects, but also harms other wildlife. Applying this new method may not be 'natural', but the methods we use now are even worse. If we reduce their breeding rate, we don't need to use as much pesticides, so less harm is caused to the ecosystem, and we get more yield off our harvests.

Additionally, we may also tweak ecosystems to be more healthy. Ecosystems are not always in balance, and it's not always beneficial to the environment, even without human intervention. Locust swarms can be pretty devastating, for example. To everything, nature itself included. Especially nature, in fact. 'Natural' does not mean 'good' and vice versa. Nature is one brutal ************, and while it should be taken care of, by no means should we let it run amok.