It's a choice to wipe them out or let them continue to exist. We were on our way to doing that using DDT until the unfortunate side-effects of that chemical were understood.
replyHm, rather, as soon as (some) mosquitoes became resistant to DDT, eradication became a lost cause.
replyThe pesticide levels built up in the insect predators of mosquitos (and other bugs) which tended to kill the predators and let the mosquito population explode.
replyThe resistance was (perhaps counterintuitively) caused by overuse in agricultural applications.
replyI agree. The precautionary principle applies to novel actions we take, not to leaving the status quo in place.
replydeleted
replyWe are choosing to not undo the harm we caused by spreading Aedes aegypti all over the world in the first place.
replydeleted
replyIf we are "choosing" to live with mosquitoes, then we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
replyWe could in one stroke take half of what multi-billionaires and quasi-trillionaires have hoarded. If they didn't have personal accountants, they wouldn't even notice it, as they have far more money than what they manage to burn through - and we would have the means to "choose" to solve real problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.
deleted
reply> we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.
replyIt's debatable whether taking half of billionaires' wealth would materially advance the efforts in those areas.
What seems far less debatable is the political consequences of the accummulation of so much wealth — coupled with essentially zero legal restrictions on the use of that wealth in the quest for (governmental) power.
[flagged]
reply