I hate all the glib wordplay that reframes a policy decision and turns it on its head to make it seem like a different kind of policy decision. Nobody is “choosing” to have mosquitos. Mosquitos exist naturally. Maybe we can undertake a large scale intervention in the environment and wipe them out, but it that’s different than “choosing” to have them. Just say what you mean.

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.

I agree. The precautionary principle applies to novel actions we take, not to leaving the status quo in place.

We are choosing to not undo the harm we caused by spreading Aedes aegypti all over the world in the first place.

If we are "choosing" to live with mosquitoes, then we also are "choosing" to let people starve, die of cancer, etc.

We 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.

[flagged]