> Food chain collapse happening elsewhere is a reason not to risk creating more of it.

Granted, but also food chain collapse has been happening for a while now and yet Anopheles is still not anything's preferred food source. It really seems to fit the definition of a strictly non-beneficial parasite.

> ...science meddling with nature also goes back in reality to the widespread food chain collapse that our science is already unintentionally causing all over the globe.

There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.

> > And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.

> Obviously the people arguing against you believe there's a chance that altering course would be far, far worse than this already-not-good outcome.

I seriously, seriously doubt the people making this argument have thought all that hard about this. The more likely scenario is that the millionish dead per year is happening in other people's countries and therefore it's not thought about at all.

I wonder what the factor-of-10 scale would be for the number of Zika-affected births in the US before Americans suddenly became overwhelmingly in favor of eradicating these mosquito species. 100? 1,000? 10,000? Over-under at 10,000, I guess?

I don't think I got much in the way of any new insight to how other people think about this, but thanks for the discussion, anyway.

> yet Anopheles is still not anything's preferred food source. It really seems to fit the definition of a strictly non-beneficial parasite.

... to our knowledge. Obviously the entire disagreement is about how complete our knowledge is and how much we can trust our understanding of how complete it is.

> There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.

No, there's not. I literally work in drug development and use science every day to improve people's lives. Respond to the arguments leveled instead of trying to conjure up a backing "origin of opinion" that you can dismiss more easily.

> I seriously, seriously doubt the people making this argument have thought all that hard about this.

Huh? I would bet the people who are skeptical of this idea are, on average, more informed than the people who love it. Because obviously the pitch of "want to eradicate mosquitos?" is: fuck yes absolutely please, fuck mosquitos they suck. Regardless of one's understanding of their truly horrible health effects elsewhere. The starting position is: get rid of them. The 2nd order consideration is "hmm, what problems might that cause?"

> I don't think I got much in the way of any new insight to how other people think about this, but thanks for the discussion, anyway.

And likewise, I came in requesting evidence for your assumptions and you've confirmed you do not have any.