At 2003-05-08 18:40 +0000, Mike Rosing wrote:

It's interesting that pathogens are learning how to bypass their normal vectors and going straight for the target (HIV and SARS come to mind).

I'm not sure the relevance. Both seem to have originated in areas not exactly devoid of a variety of common disease vectors. What's selecting [HIV and SARS] viruses for ability to jump directly from primary carrier to humans? All sorts of insects and rodents in Africa could serve as vectors, and China's probably even worse since they've largely screwed up their ecosystem through overpopulation.

Plague rode on fleas that rode on rats, and it covered the planet. SARS rides the host on airplanes and covers the planet a hell of a lot faster. Ebola is fortunatly self limiting, but seems to be wiping out all primates in its zone of influence. Let's hope that thing doesn't learn a better vector!

It's had thousands, probably tens of thousands of years. What are the chances it'll adapt to use a better vector before genetics advances past the point where nature can compete with technology? After that, the only threats will be from biowarfare programs or from greens who think up schemes like "let's create a tyrannosaur-pterosaur hybrid and release thousands to see if they'll 'fix' the food chain." -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11

On Thursday 08 May 2003 12:47 pm, harlequin wrote:

I think that this is the whole point. It's impossible to tell what effect removing a species from an ecosystem will have due to the phenomenal complexity of the system. Just removing the mosquito _appears_ to have very little effect, but the wider ramifications of such an action could be disastrous.

Not to mention removing the only reason earth hasn't been destroyed by aliens! [1] [1] Watch the movie "Lilo and Stitch" (That was 90 minutes of my life I wish I hadn't wasted). :) -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 09:40:06AM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:

-- On 8 May 2003 at 18:47, harlequin wrote:

...

I think that this is the whole point. It's impossible to tell what effect removing a species from an ecosystem will have due to the phenomenal complexity of the system.

In any one area, species come and go all the time, usually without much consequence. Attempting to stop nature from changing is also an interference in nature. Ten thousand years ago, the natural environment in California was different in almost every way. Who is to say that one was better than the other?

I agree up to a point. Species do disappear all the time, as a natural process of elimination. The difference in this scenario is a deliberate and fast genocide, not the extinction of a species which is not viable. An artificial interference rather than a natural progression. Stopping nature from changing is definitely an interference, and one with which I disagree. This isn't the case here, though. We're not talking about preventing the mosquito from becoming extinct through natural causes, we're talking about not wiping it out. Which environment is better? Well, it's impossible to compare. I think that the current drive is generally to have as little impact on the "natural" evolution of a landscape as is possible. It all depends where you draw the line. It's certainly possible to argue that any species should try as hard as possible to survive, and so we should wipe out everything that threatens us in any way and create a homogenized and safe environment for humans. I don't think that many people would agree with that viewpoint, however. ... and so another delightfully off-topic message ends. H -- "He who controls the past controls the future; | We are at war with Iraq, he who controls the present controls the past." | We have always been at war -- O'Brien in Orwell's "1984" | with Iraq.