> 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.

▲

thaumaturgy an hour ago | parent [-]

> Respond to the arguments leveled

I replied to the words you wrote. If what you wrote doesn't say what you meant to say, fine, but don't come at me for it.

> The starting position is: get rid of them. The 2nd order consideration is "hmm, what problems might that cause?"

Alright, I can go along with that. Then the 3rd order consideration would have to be, "okay, here are the possible problems it could cause, and here is the evidence for and against."

And that is where I've been working this subject from from the beginning of this thread.

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

...other than the multiple links to discussions, books, papers, and opinion pieces from subject matter experts, you mean? I notice none of your comments happened to come with any supporting evidence for your argument. We're supposed to just believe that eradicating these pests would cause a worse outcome than the current amount of human misery they cause worldwide because... why? Because of your hypothetical aliens and because humans use science to cause ecological harm?

Maybe take a step back and reassess.

	▲	estearum 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You literally said it was unstated. I.e. not responding to what was stated. > 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. Yes, absolutely agreed we're talking about the 3rd order of questioning. In particular the question: can eradicating these mosquitos destroy a food chain that we end up caring about? Not one of the links you've posted actually addresses this question, except maybe the Archive.ph link which is broken for me (feel free to re-post if you can). The supporting argument for food chain effects is that when a food source is in an ecosystem for long enough, it will be exploited by something. This is a basic feature of natural systems: free energy doesn't just go sitting around for long. The question is then if you remove this particular food source over the course of a few years, will alternatives take its place fast enough? You have not posted any evidence of this. The null hypothesis should be no, since evolution does not typically operate on timescales like this. If 1) all the animals that eat these mosquitos just as easily eat other mosquitos and 2) those other mosquitos can easily breed to make up the difference, then sure! But again: you have not posted any evidence of this claim and it is not at all obvious it should be assumed. Here are the arguments you and your posted links have made: 1. Mosquitos are bad (agreed) 2. We can kill just the ones that hurt humans (agreed) 3. There are other mosquitos (agreed) 4. Those other ones will take their place in the food chain (not evidenced) 5. Other food chain disruptions are happening anyway (agreed) 6. Therefore this one is probably fine (not evidenced) You have not addressed the specific point of contention.