People do not take issue with doing something against malaria but with the proposed method.
How could it be stopped if something went wrong? It's not like a chemical agent that you just stop applying when you notice adverse effects. This is a living thing. Living things can procreate, mutate, enter new niches and the only deciding factor is the rate of reproduction. Life doesn't optimize for killing malaria-carrying mosquitoes, it optimizes for rate of reproduction and survival. As soon as there is a mutation that can extend the niche to another target, this will happen. And getting such a match doesn't have to be via a mutation on the fungus either, it can also be one of the target, making it susceptible to it.
How do you make sure these things don't happen? I'm worried that the answer is that you can't.
(Edit: I'm not even talking about engineered organisms, just have a look at a list of invasive species)
Perhaps there might be a higher level question at hand here. What level of caution is appropriate when the deliberate choice of inaction has a price tag of six digits of lives attached? What level of risk and potentially unforeseen consequences are we willing to accept?
This is not an idle question. It's a critical question for informing a decision-making framework that rests on calculation. Which we need here - I think we can all agree that personal ick-factor is a bad approach to large-scale public policy.
Which is to say you're right. We cannot be certain that won't happen with this approach. Indeed, we cannot be certain of all consequences with any approach.
With that in mind, what level of certainty should we require?
It sounds like you want to take a calculated risk. I'm not convinced that this is a calculated risk -- it's an unbounded risk. What if it, for example, kills of pretty much all of the insects over a large part of the earth?
These types of examples aren’t useful though because you can make up any number of them, and make them as extreme as you want.
Risk management, on the other hand, is about determining risks that are reasonably likely, and figuring out contingencies and mitigation strategies.
In your opinion, is it reasonably likely that a fungi that is engineered to kill a specific species of insect (and only those carrying a specific disease) can somehow go out of control and end up killing all insects on the planet? In my opinion, it is not.
I think there are a number of people waking up to the level of concern that you need to put on unbounded risks. See the popular book, The Black Swan. To throw out these large but improbable risks is taking a large part out of these distributions. Maybe it's not a good idea.
I disagree. The often unstated sentiment under such thoughts is always "hmm, this sounds way too crazy, we probably shouldn't do it because it feels too much like 'Playing God'!".
It's a form of concern-trolling: deep down inside you are against something, but don't want to say that openly, so instead you pretend to side with the proponents, but choose to play the role of "concerned citizen" and invent scary scenarios at the extreme ends of the probability spectrum, with the suggestion that "we should probably research this thing more before we try it!"
That's not the underlying reasoning and I have heard very clear arguments. The argument goes something like 'the extremely impactful event has never occurred in the past so our risk assessment is very vulnerable to large magnitude errors'.
What is encouraged is taking actions that have well understood OR bounded risk.
By bringing up "concern-trolling", I am concerned you have given up the fight. By avoiding the direct argument and retreating to this supposed hidden argument, which is much easier to counter, there is not anything left to discuss. Tell me if I am misunderstanding.
This is a situation where the potential risk that comes with the new invention of man is catastrophic. It's on the same level of Hamming having to, while onthe Manhatten Project, calculate the odds of igniting the atmosphere. There is existential risk to our species and possibly all animal life. So, yeah, we can spend a few years trying to learn about the mutability of this bug.
I'm suggesting that some sort of risk evaluation framework more sophisticated than "Gee, I can imagine a scenario where this kills us all!" might be in order.
Another criticism of this haste is that you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by profiteers or genuine malicious actors. I understand the urgency to save lives as soon as possible; but the risk is high and uncertain.
You're right: the risks are both high and uncertain.
With that in mind, it's perhaps worth considering the potential benefits of having a uniform framework for evaluating risks that are attendant upon any given possible course of action. Risk evaluation neither starts nor stops with personal ick-factor or the worst scenarios imaginable. Risk evaluations also need to include the probability of success, expected costs, the estimated probability of any negative outcomes or side-effects, and so on. It's a non-trivial endeavor.
Again, you're right. The risks of any possible course of action, particularly poorly understood ones, are very real. They demand meticulous and systematic evaluation.
For something like this? An extreme amount. There are other options (a vaccine is already being tested) that can't mutate into a pathogen that kills off more people than the thing it was supposed to cure. Let's finish vetting those out completely before we move to what can only be described as the unstable nuclear option.
To be clearer, the question of what level of caution is appropriate is one that cannot depend on the approach being considered. It needs to to be one that can be applied evenly across the whole of the solution-space.
Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based around personal ick-factor. Which is great when choosing what to have for dinner, but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people.
Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say, but tainted vaccines are a known risk. There may be unknown long-term risks or other things that haven't been fully studied. No approach is risk-free in this arena, and we do a disservice to humanity when we pretend otherwise.
> Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say
The live polio vaccine absolutely can. Before polio was largely eliminated, it didn't really matter, but once the risk of getting the wild-type virus dropped below the risk of getting it from the vaccine, it stopped making sense to use the live-attenuated vaccine.
This makes me think that it's good persuasion to acknowledge that all anti-vaxxers aren't necessarily fundamentally irrational (some are I'm sure). Most people are anti-vaccine with respect to smallpox for example, as well as the polio example you give. We continue to use the vaccines we do because they improve the overall odds, not because they are a panacea with no downsides.
The modern inactivated ("killed", if you consider a virus alive) polio vaccine is nearly perfectly safe though (other than one-in-a-million allergic reactions), and can't give you polio. Nobody's used the live vaccine in the US since 2000.
People don't generally get vaccinated against smallpox anymore because the pathogen has been eradicated.
>but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people.
You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects.
But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
I can see I have been unclear. Please accept my apologies for my error.
I do not think it reasonable to rush through any thing, option, or approach in this arena. I do not suggest or advise any actions of the sort in any way, shape, or form. I do think it's worth taking the time to ensure that risks are handled properly. I think it's worth having a uniform framework for identifying what those risks are and reasoning about them to enable planning. I also think we should consider carefully the potential benefits of exploring multiple possibilties, against the chance that the most pleasing and lowest risk ones do not pan out.
Again, please accept my apoligies for being unclear. I hope I've made myself clearer! Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can communicate better.
Couldn't this argument be applied to any living thing, not just the ones that humans have engineered? As soon as anything can mutate to enter a new niche, it will work the same way as this would.
Usually we breed organisms for weekness. Many of our farm animals and plants wouldnt survive without our protection.
Also mutations, often have to overcome obsticles to conquer a new niche. They have to reach a specific habitat or deploy seeds at a distribution system (cars driving dirt roads e.g.).
Lets take a nice little SciFi Example- NASA breeds in its lab a terraformer for venus, a sort of airborn spirondella. This could potentially wipeout all live below, by covering a planet with green "living" clouds.
Now this organism could escape the lab, bot as long as it does not reach a warm, wet climate it is dormant. So even if this dangerous organism was out there- it could potentially deteriorate before it reaches the equatorial belt and starts to bloom.
Nothing is certain in nature, but one thing- if its a success - it trys to be a exponential success.
The limiting factor ends up being competition much more than it ends up being rate of reproduction.
For example, we'd get sick a lot more if we weren't teeming with more or less symbiotic organisms. A fungus that specializes in infecting Anopheles and also destroys the resource that it is optimized to consume isn't just going to up and start dissolving rubber.
> A fungus that specializes in infecting Anopheles
Research was made in the nine species known of the genus Metarhizum. Some of them are known to science since only 10 years ago when some of the species were better studied and split and hidden species appeared.
Some species seem to be specialist, like M. acridi, that target grasshoppers. Other are generalist, like M. anisopliae that can attack insects of seven different orders. Some spores can be diseminated by water and target aquatic larvae, other spread by the air. Surprisingly, M. anisopliae is sold since a few years and used with the purpose to kill beetles of several species, and planned to use it to kill ticks and mosquitoes.
Source: Journal of Funghi 2017, 3 (30).
So first doubt, are the species used in research really specialist and selective?
"A transgenic, broad host-range M. anisopliae strain expressing an insect neurotoxin (AaIT) from Androctonus australis reduced mobility and blood feeding interest of adult Aedes aegypti mosquitoes"
"broad-host range" looks the opposite term to "specialist" to me
"Since M. pingshaense spores take 2–3 days to penetrate host cuticle, RFP and Met-Hybrid do not cause mortality 24 hours post-infection ... Met-Hybrid achieved >80% mortality within one week with LT80’s of 5.18±0.482 days, 5.54±0.326 days and 5.25±0.269 days for Anopheles coluzzii, An. gambiae and An. Kisumu, respectively".
So when it says "fungus rapidly kills mosquitoes", maybe should say, "fungus kills mosquitoes between 2 and five days"
"The fungus has been given genes to produce an insecticide, known as a “hybrid”, first extracted from the Australian funnel-web spider and already approved in the US for treating crops."
This is what the independent says. I haven't found an official source for this claim but if true, I don't have words for this fact, only expletives. Has somebody asked american citizens if they agreed to participate in this experiment?
The previous magic bullet against Malaria was called Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, commonly known as DDT.
DDT worked very well, initially, but its effects and consequences were intractable and long-term. It's still deployed to various degrees of effectiveness, but usage is far more complex than the initial promise of getting rid of Malaria.
A GM fungus 99% kill rate sounds good, but for insect populations that might not be enough. You likely can't use it again to kill 99% of the 1% left, and so on.
DDT is a chemical. You can stop using it to mitigate some of the unforeseen side effects. How can one retrieve or stop GM fungi in the wild? What patterns of resistance will emerge?
With DDT we got "lucky". It turned out to be overall effective when combined with guidelines and different approaches, but it never rooted out malaria completely by itself in one fell swoop.
Creating natural enemies of a pest by genetic modification is a valid approach, but not something to deploy wide-scale at the first hint of success.
This is like arguing that the Model T demonstrates that cars will never be safe enough to drive.
Yes, there are ways to do this wrong. We have a much better idea what they are and our standards for precision and reliability are much higher. The 1940s are long gone and we aren't the baby boomers. We require seat belts in all cars, houses to be built to fire and electrical codes, and household chemicals to have plain labels and clear warnings.
We also now know that we need to specifically target something like three sub-species of mosquito and that if we hit exactly those three the ecological impact will be essentially zero; we've verified that they don't compete with anything and that nothing eats them and that they don't interact in any of the dozens of ecological systems that professional biologists understand that programmers never learn about. We know that we need to hit exactly those sub-species because DDT happened. We know that we need to study things like evolution rates and virulence before deploying engineered organisms; we have, after all, all watched Jurassic Park.
The people working on this understand what will happen if their solution isn't good enough. You are not adding anything to this situation except uncharitable negativity. You cite DDT. I'll cite Greenpeace, whose blind opposition to nuclear power is still contributing to the ongoing death of our planet. Don't be Greenpeace.
Your counter examples are about the mitigation of unexpected and unwanted effects. These were implemented after the fact.
There are situations that have no possibility of redress.
Your paragraph about ecological impact can serve as an example of the lurking danger. I wasn't even concerned about ecological impact. My concern was about artificially creating a resistant species. That's one of the pitfalls here. We're talking about the same thing, but because it's new we're not addressing the same issue.
We got away with DDT because:
- We could stop using it.
- There were alternatives that reshuffled the genepool of a now largely resistant population the other way, after the fact.
These two are not a given when deploying engineered organisms. Even though both are means to fight malaria, they are not the same and need different considerations of which some are new and not valid for any older approaches.
> The people working on this understand what will happen if their solution isn't good enough.
> I wasn't even concerned about ecological impact.
I spat out a post in ten minutes that looked further out than you did. I wasn't even trying.
The people that actually do this stuff are trained, credentialed biologists and ecologists that have taken courses on this and spend literal decades reading studies about proposals and going down checklists of things that have caused problems in the past. It is literally their job to make sure nobody can say "You didn't consider X" during review, on the news, or in court.
Back in tenth grade I took an honors biology course. The year's final project was to write an environmental impact statement for, if I recall correctly, chopping down twenty or thirty trees in a nearby park. In retrospect, we worked off what I suspect was a massively stripped-down version of a tiny fraction of the real rules.
It took five of us a month and we wrote a hundred pages single-spaced.
> So do most programmers...
I certainly won't argue that the field of software engineering doesn't need more rigor - there are reasons that I prefer writing cleaner code than my coworkers often do. But this proposal isn't operating in the same regime I usually do.
I mangle data at scale for a fuzzy rules-engine type thing. I bet you do something with comparable correctness requirements. There are times I've looked at a bug, looked at the logs, figured out the underlying conditions, estimated the future occurrence, concluded that I spent more money just looking at the logs than it would cost to remediate the data by hand for the next ten years, and estimated that it'd take me three times as long to actually fix it. I do know what happens when my solutions aren't good enough, and I bet you do too.
Aerospace and defense programmers operate in a regime far more like what we see with these environmental proposals. And guess what? They know what happens when their code isn't good enough... and they have huge checklists that they go down for every single change and have their code audited regularly and tested obscenely thoroughly and spend weeks tracking down tiny bugs, stamping them out, and adding them to the checklist.
(Before you bring up the recent boeing failures: Take a look at the politics and incentives. Where did the economic and political incentives lie there? Where do you think the economic and political incentives lie for a proposal like this? Especially given how much environmental fearmongering we see as a result of movies like Jurassic Park? Do you think that anyone would dare approve a project like this with anything less than every single i dotted and every single t crossed?)
> but because it's new we're not addressing the same issue.
Development of resistance is such a well-known failure mode for pest-control tools that wikipedia's page on DDT has a whole second-level paragraph titled "Mosquito resistance".
Why do you think that evolution and resistance are novel failure modes, and why do you think they'd have been missed in the analysis?
Very much so. You were presenting how there would be no danger to the ecosystem if these three sub-species were successfully destroyed. I never got as far because I wondered about the similarities of population regrowth after destruction with insecticide and destruction with modified organisms.
> Before you bring up the recent boeing failures
I don't need to. Building nuclear facilities is (usually) a very rigorous field with the highest quality of engineering, but sometimes factors of design considerations interact in ways that create new conditions that were impossible to predict. And since you mentioned aeroplanes: if you look at NTSB reports, you often find the cause of crashes is a long chain of trivial events, every single one of them meticulously checklisted and tested with fallback modes to avert disaster. It's not the components, but the intractability of the web of interaction.
> Why do you think that evolution and resistance are novel failure modes
Because evolution and resistance are novel failure modes in the context of genetically designed natural enemies. Previous statistical models might not hold even though the situations modeled appears exactly similar.
> why do you think they'd have been missed in the analysis?
Genetic modification is a statistical process, much like an AI network where something goes in and the output is measured for fitness and fed back. Random artifacts are to be expected and accounted for, but cannot be known to exist before the fact. As such their model might be complete, but it might not be sound.
As you implied, rigor is important, and faced with potentially irreversible consequences, skepticism is not an unnatural or irrational response.
Do you know why 99,99% of the extant spiders are harmless to humans?
1) Because many spiders (but not all) are evolved to target insect methabolism instead mammal methabolism
2) Because spiders aren't bees. The majority are solitary and small, have a limited body size and can just inject a single tiny dose of its extra-potent poisons.
3) and their tiny chelicers are too small and weak to pierce the human skin until reaching a layer with circulatory system so the poison is stopped by the stratum corneum of dead cells in epidermis and other upper layers of skin
Now lets suppose that a spider could grow indefinitely and make an unlimited amount of poison, like a fungus
And lets suppose that spider poison could be breathed directly and pass from lungs to blood wessels, and acumulated all day like fungus spores entering in your nose
What could happen? shalalala
Maybe nothing
or maybe any insect of any species would be poisoned eventually in presence of spores. They take air directly. Result: collapse of agriculture by simultaneous decrease of suitable pollinators at all levels
or maybe humans would have a new type of allergy, part allergy part nervous poisoning.
People tired of breathing poison all day after a strong rain? People now allergic to a previously harmless and widespread fungus present everywhere?, in its modified and wild forms?
Of course having 3000 species of spiders to choose they needed to play with the cool funnel-web spider. One of the most deadly spiders for humans. Wise choice.
Atracotoxins. Stuff extremely toxic for a particular kind of animal: primates, causing pulmonary and cerebral edema in humans.
Fortunately for mosquitoes, atracotoxins are relatively weak as insect killer. Big spiders rely in their fangs to subdue the prey. My congratulations for the people that so carefully designed this experiment.
What is a 'carefully-controlled scientific experiment'? Please link me to the documentation of the safety controls they used and also to the body that verifies that they actually followed those controls properly and effectively. Hint: Neither thing exists.
The thing is it isn't "unlimited" but based on growth impact and still targets insectoid metabolisms. It isn't Ice-9 here. Fungals tend to be mostly nuisances to humans except for Anthrax and even then it is finnicky as hell to weaponize when actively trying. Apparently a balance to be dense enough to be deadly while still able to spread enough to infect.
This is scary. Not because GM or mosquito populations. This is scary because we don't know enough of fungi role in the environment. Yes, we know this species infects the mosquitos but what else? What other roles does it have?
And with fungi this is especially dangerous because spores get literally everywhere and are hard to eliminate!
Unless we can ensure the fungus is engineered to not generate viable spores on a second generation this is a recipe for disaster.
These threads about whether it's moral to kill mosquitoes en masse always seem to end up being about unintended consequences and ecosystem collapse.
Some points to consider:
- Those who study the strains of mosquito (a generous 50 out of ~3500) which spread disease in humans regularly state that they are not a primary food source for any one predator.[1]
- Malaria killed 429 000 people in 2015, 90% of those being in Africa, and many of them children.[2]
- All of our current control methods have unintended consequences. Take for example that NGOs who offered insecticide-treated mosquito nets to communities found that they were being used in waterways for fishing.[3]
- In developed nations we are happily deploying much less targeted solutions without significant levels of complaint (and to counter relatively less serious mosquito-borne diseases), such as the indiscriminate aerial spraying of insecticides over large areas and waterways.[4]
Everything is a trade-off, admittedly, and we can never know the full set of consequences in advance (see: the impacts of introduced species), but it might be a useful exercise to weigh your concerns against the benefits to sub-saharan Africa as a whole (and to individual African families) that could materialize were these particular strains of mosquito to be eliminated.
And give a little credit to those educated people doing the research into the likelihood of ecosystem collapse and producing reasonable peer-reviewed results.
Edit to add: That said, I'm personally partial to the efforts which release genetically-sterilised males. That seems less like the plot of a Hollywood doomsday movie than a spider-venom fungus.
I'm personally partial to the efforts which release genetically-sterilised males.
It also has the upside of being short lived. That is to say if we ever decide we need to stop using the technique, we just stop breeding sterile males. As opposed to invasive species or chemicals lurking in the soil or water long term.
I'm curious, if we had the power to just snap our fingers and irradiate all mosquitoes, do we have consensus to do so? I worry about unforeseeable consequences.
I dont. Species go extinct all the time and we're already trying to kill them all with bad side effects like indiscriminate pesticides.
This is one case of me falling on the side of intervention. Malaria is a terrible scourge, primarily on children. So much so that humans evolved sickle cell anemia as a prevention.
We only need to get rid of a few problematic subspecies that followed humans out of Africa. They're actually invasive so there's not a big risk to local ecosystems.
How effective is a double layer of mosquito netting at stopping fungal spores ? The workers in the photos don't seem to be wearing any sort of protection equipment either. This seems like a very carelessly conducted experiment. The fungus is in the wild at this point. Fungi are very persistent and our immune system is not well equipped to deal with them, much more care should be required to avoid release in the environment of a pathogen agent not thoroughly tested and evaluated.
This paper is just a stunt.
I searched for previous publications with the same fungus against anopheles, and 2015 study showed a natural isolate that was already 90% lethal.
That strain also kill some rice grubs.
The controlled installations in the picture look pretty piss-poor, such that GMO is already in the wild by now.
Good efforts! I'm still slightly partial to that other approach where they genetically modified the mosquitos themselves to only produce male offspring, in such a fashion that the gene was dominant and thus soon there would be only male mosquitos.
Still, if there's been a snag in the road for that approach, this appears to be a viable alternative
Bad outcomes for gene drive are either that it doesn't work, or the mosquitoes go extinct in nature and cause more ecological issues by their absence. The worst problem is fixable by keeping live specimens for reintroduction. In fact, since malaria is the target and not the mosquitoes, reintroduction might be a good idea after malaria becomes extinct.
Bad outcomes for the fungus is it becoming uncontrollable and starts killing other insects. Reintroduction becomes impossible without engineering a new, immune mosquito. Or that evolution backfires on the spider and causes them to go extinct. Or all of those happening together.
Comparing the two, the fungus has all the downsides and more, with zero upside.
I was justifying my preference for the gene drive compared with the fungus. The fungus has potential to evolve independently to do different things, the gene drive does not. QED.
The fungus is supposed to be deployed on a rather small scale. It is not infectious for other insects, so it's probably not able to spread very far. Most of all, it is already freely spreading in its natural form, and does not lead to mass extinction of these malaria mosquitos, proven by the fact that they still exist...
On top of that the spider venom is probably bad for the fungus. Apart from taking away resources from synthesizing actually useful proteins, it kills the hosts much more quickly. The fungus probably prefers to kill the host slowly in order to cover more distance.
Which would be a much bigger evolutionary leap compared to losing the spider venom. And dauntingly big for a fungus that kills off 99% of hosts in the region that quickly.
I presume that the fungus is obligatorily parasitic, meaning it can't thrive outside its host, except as a spore. This is true for most pathogenic fungi.
From the article it's not even clear that the fungus "spreads" well or at all in a mosquito population. I think they intend to grow the spores large-scale in a lab, and infect most of the mosquitos directly, and not through secondary transmission...
Also: The fungus already exists in the wild. It just doesn't kill the host that quickly.
"Life finds a way" is probably one of the more important lessons to be had from sci-fi books/movies.
Edit: For the record, I am serious. I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea, but simply assuming the fungus won't evolve and attack new hosts is naive. It needs to be monitored and controlled very, very tightly. Imagine if it somehow started escaping and attacking the already strained bee population or something.
Probably half and half. Crichton's writing always has some scientific roots even if it's pseudoscience (and some of his books have a real obvious agenda). He usually is tapping into an overstated but real fear, and I think Jurassic Park is firmly rooted in correctly fearing man's tendency to leap into something without fully understanding the risks if they see major benefits.
I pay some attention to malaria rates, partly because I like to donate to the Against Malaria Fund[0], and these charts are fascinating to me because I usually just see the UN charts (the first chart in your link[1]). All the other charts on that page show deaths increasing until 2003, and then dropping. They're using IHME data.
Further down, at [2], they discuss why these charts are so different, pointing out that IHME was estimating roughly double the rates as the UN in Nigeria, DRC, and India due to "differences in methodology, data coverage and sourcing".
Cool, that's nice. But what happened in 2003 to turn this all around?
According to the IHME itself, "One of the biggest forces in the decline in malaria deaths was the advent of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), which provided 40% of development assistance for health targeted toward malaria from 2003 to 2008."[3]
So that's neat.
It's important for us to keep in mind that while aid often messed up terribly (especially in the late 20th Century), a lot of aid has been working really well for decades now. We figured out, for the most part, how to provide aid without it all going to funding corrupt governments, or destroying local agricultural economies.
Here's where I do a quick shill for The Against Malaria Foundation. They're very well-rated by Givewell[4], so if you want to stop malaria, I highly recommend giving them money. :-)
We have to take into account that with climate change the area where the mosquitoes live will probably be wider affecting more people so extending malaria to bigger populations. IMHO, can be wrong , that we have not made a lot against malaria because till now it affected only poor countries but from now on it will probably arrive to richer ones.
Third world countries have already financed the draining of European swamps. It’s the wealth stolen in Asia, Africa and America that made those public works projects possible in the first place.
The reason former colonies haven’t been able to do the same at home is because their society and economy are permanently crippled by colonization.
Colonization, was brutal, self-serving, and its economic consequences are still felt to this day (especially when neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments is still a thing).
> Even when we are talking only about the areas that can be considered as part of Early China, back in a time when "China" as a nation was still in her infancy, we find that more cultural developments had taken place in the valleys and strips of plains that are surrounded by mountains and plateaus on the second step mentioned above, or on the transitional belts along the major mountain ranges, but not at the centers of the floodplains located in the east. The reason for this development was simply ecological, given the fact that in the second millennium BC most of the eastern China plains were still covered by marshes and lakes[2], and the coastline in some sections was at least 150 km inland from today's seashores. The pre-Qin texts record the names of more than forty marshes or lakes on the North China Plain, most of which had dried out after the third century AD. In fact, for millennia the North China Plain was continuously caught in the process of sedimentation by the Yellow River which carried on its way east huge quantities of earth from the topographical second step [areas 1-2 km above sea level].
> [2] Even in the historical period, it was recorded that the Yellow River had changed its course some twenty-six times.
The Yellow River killed vast numbers of Chinese who farmed its banks, even being given the name "China's sorrow". But efforts were made:
> Over time, as the bottom of the channel gradually rose, the river overflowed its banks. Dikes were built ever higher to prevent flooding, and in some places the river started to flow above the surrounding countryside. Today, in a stretch of about 1,100 miles, the Yellow River moves along 11 yards above the plain.
> Under the Qin and Han empires [roughly 200 BC - 200 AD], the Yellow River was the core of Chinese civilization, home to around 90 percent of the population.
During that period, the Chinese hadn't really settled farther south, because... it was full of swamps. But the swamps were drained, the people moved in, and the Yangtze River basin and areas further south had become the demographic center of China by the end of the Tang dynasty in, um, 900 AD.
Tang China was probably the wealthiest country in the world at that time. But it was much poorer than any country today.
Warring States China in 400 BC was much poorer than that.
So no, no one has been "permanently crippled by colonization", and if they had, draining the local swamps would still be well within their means.
You kind of proved the point though because century time scales are involved then instead of decades for the project. I would certainly call "multigenerational when others can do it in one" crippled.
As pygy_ explained above, colonialism has morphed into "neocolonialism through private corporations and puppet governments". That is a symptom of the widening gap in power between former colonies and former colonizers. That gap is compounding over time, making it harder and harder for former colonies to catch up. In that sense, the crippling effects of colonization are still felt today, and are continuing to grow with no end in sight.
What makes you think the gap is compounding? Is that fact-based, or feelings-based?
I'd recommend reading Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. It'll cause you to rethink some things.
edit: Here's an interesting fact for you. In the late 1990s, the global extreme poverty rate (around $1.80/day in today's dollars) was 29%. Today, it's under 9%. We've wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty in twenty years. https://www.gapminder.org/topics/extreme-poverty-trend/
> What makes you think the gap is compounding? Is that fact-based, or feelings-based?
What a strange way to engage in a debate. I already explained why I think the gap is compounding. Feel free to offer a constructive rebuttal if you disagree.
> We've wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty in twenty years.
That is fantastic. How does it relate to the compounding power gap we’re discussing?
If you read Factfulness, you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random.
So yes, "Is this belief feelings-based?" is an incredibly important question.
So how does the question of the rapid reduction of extreme poverty relate to the "compounding power gap"? First, it shows that progress is being made, that the poorest of the poor are doing much better than they were as recently as two decades ago.
But more importantly, I do not believe you have demonstrated with facts and evidence that there is a "compounding power gap". You believe that there is compounding power gap, based on the fact that there is a power gap at all. But actual, fact-based evidence suggests that power gap (measuring by dollars as a proxy, since you didn't offer a standard of measurement for your power gap) is decreasing, and rapidly. With some exceptions, the poorer nations are increasing their wealth at a far faster rate than richer nations are.
It's a list of countries by GDP growth rate. I assume you're familiar with the miracle of compounding, since you used that word.
The first European country on the list is Ireland, at 13. The next is Hungary, at 40. The first former colonial power is the US, at 107, more than halfway down the list.
If you don't think that economic growth is a reasonable proxy for "compounding power gap", then what is?
You write very confidently, but don’t seem to have a good grasp of this topic, so I’ll give you a few pointers.
First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand.
Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does not distinguish raw materials from refined goods and advanced industries (why do you think Lybia is on top of your list?); it does not reflect quality of life or security; it does not reflect independence from foreign interests; it does not reflect military power or the ability to influence global and regional affairs. There isn’t a single metric which neatly reflects every dimension of the problem (I never claimed there was), but as a starting point for further research, I recommend studying the UN’s IHDI report. You can find lists of countries sorted by IHDI. Another good thing to do is study the bottom third of pretty much any sorted list of countries - by IHDI, HDI, any variation of GDP or GDP growth - and ask yourself 1) “why are these countries in the bottom?” and 2) “how likely are these countries to be in the top third in 50 years?”.
Third, study the role of Trans-National Corporations in the world economy. How much do they contribute to the economic output of former colonies? To what extent are they headquartered in former colonial powers? To what extent are their profits, and capital gains realized by their shareholders, reinvested in former colonies vs. colonial powers? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Fourth, for a different take on the problem, study the racial wealth gap in the US, Canada and Australia. Study the development state of indigenous nations within those countries. Can you guess the root cause of this state of affairs? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Lastly, quoting from your favorite self-help book doesn’t make you magically smarter or more convincing, just obnoxious.
I hope these pointers will help you in your quest for “factfulness”.
And fwiw, I firmly believe that reading Factfulness and absorbing its lessons does make you smarter. Enough so that I would buy you a copy, if you promise to read it.
It's not weird to think a book can make you smarter, either. Assuming you believe reading and learning in general make you smarter (I assume you do), and that smart and engaged people are sometimes wrong (I assume you believe that as well), then it stands to reason that a book dedicated to understanding how smart and engaged people can believe incorrect things will make you even smarter than before.
You're making excuses in order to ignore my data. I've presented both current growth rates and long-term per capita growth for periods of over 50 years. You're just lying to yourself in order to avoid acknowledging that former colonies are now growing economically faster than former colonizers. Face facts.
Why is Libya at the top of the list? Probably due to the growth response to the cessation (or at least reduction) of civil war. That happens. And no, this doesn't take into account raw materials vs advanced production, which is a long-term growth concern for many countries. On the other hand, many former colonies are developing advanced manufacturing, particularly in Asia.
Military power and the ability to influence global affairs via violence is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Exploitation at gunpoint is no longer a viable economic model, and hasn't really been since WWII, which is why colonization ended in the first place.
Believe it or not, former colonies are independent nations with independent economies and independent goals, who don't just exist at the tolerance of great powers anymore. Your attitude towards them pretends to be supportive, but is actually utterly condescending. Really, please stop and think about that point.
I'm well aware of the role of trans-national corporations in this system (I use the phrase "neoliberal hegemony" pretty freely). But the simple fact is, when those corporations invest in former colonial economies, they're creating jobs and growth there, and there's a lot more opportunity there than in the fully developed economies of former colonial powers. That's why those economies are growing so fast. China in particular (a former colony itself) has invested heavily in its "Belt and Road" approach to investing in infrastructure to create mutually beneficial trade opportunities - building ports, factories, communications, etc.
And yes, I'm aware of the racial wealth gap in the US (which is a special case in many ways) and other countries. Been studying it for decades, actually.
Of course you think it's obnoxious. You're getting told that your condescending attitude towards former colonies and reactionary attitude toward their "oppressors" is wrong, that things are much better than you think they are. Being wrong is a bitter pill to swallow. But which is better... feeling good about being wrong, or being right?
Improvements in extreme poverty rate are neither here nor there when talking about whether the long-term effects of colonialism cause the speed of long-term development in former colonies to be slower. This is all that is necessary for wealth, income and power gaps to compound.
I would argue that, at the moment, economic development of former colonies is happening considerably faster than development in the former colonizers. And the evidence agrees with me. Take China, for example. Per capita income there has grown from $89 in 1960 to over $9000 today (constant 2018 dollars), a 100x increase. Over the same period, US per capita income grew from $3000 to $60,000, a 20x increase. The number of nations mired in desperate poverty drops every year, and the number of nations improving their economies rapidly grows.
My home state of Minnesota jokes about mosquitoes being our state bird, but I have zero risk of catching malaria from them. That's because malaria isn't carried by our native mosquitoes. So our cost of mitigation is rather lower.
- with climate change the area where the mosquitoes live will probably be wider
Malaria used to be widespread in Italy. It was causing 15000 deaths/ year in the 19th century. It's nowhere to be found now thanks to insecticides and soil drainage.
So I'm a bit sceptical when I hear that climate change will widen the range of malaria. The range already included the first world, we eradicated it.
> The only approved vaccine as of 2015 is RTS,S, known by the trade name Mosquirix. It requires four injections, and has a relatively low efficacy. Due to this low efficacy, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not recommend the routine use of the RTS,S vaccine in babies between 6 and 12 weeks of age.[1]
> A WHO-led implementation program is piloting the vaccine in three high-malaria countries in Africa in 2019. The first phase of the project, covered by grants from Unitaid, Gavi and the Global Fund, is planned to establish the feasibility, impact and safety of RTS,S, when used as part of a routine immunization program.[2][3] Research continues into recombinant protein and attenuated whole organism vaccines.
I think it is more a moral trolley problem really. Not doing something will result in X but do it for Y which will lessen it. Included the associated arguements about responsibility vs outcomes.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
I'm not advocating killing of anyone, all I'm saying that getting rid of Malaria is not worth it if the damage done to the nature outweigh the humanitarian gains. I believe that environmental degradation is the number one enemy of our specie's survival, nothing else comes even close. Any form activity to improve people's lives that isn't environmentally sustainable is frankly speaking waste of time, someone will eventually suffer the consequences of such actions in the future. Possibility of driving entire species extinct to protect humans definitely doesn't sound sustainable to me.
Perhaps "because their lives will be miserable" argument was indeed dumb though. I wouldn't support environmentally unsustainable actions in any highly developed nation either, no matter how many lives it could save on short-term. Long-term we have no hope if environmental factors aren't taken seriously. As far as most African countries goes, reducing birth rate through any humane means possible should be the primary goal, together with building economic growth on renewables rather than fossil fuels.
I would imagine that developing environmentally sustainable
ways to fight malaria shouldn't be so hard if Western countries actually bothered to properly fund such research. Too bad our priorities are elsewhere, like developing more effective weapons. That's the attitude which actually creates genocide, not the idea of long-term sustainable development which I tried to promote with my comment but clearly failed.
I have no issue with modifying genetics normally, but why in the world would you modify a fungus to produce spider toxin? Fungi are far more advanced and intertwined with the biosphere than most people realize. What if they escape and run amok?
Why not just modify the mosquito which has been shown to work?
Why would they run amok? Does the spider toxin give them a survival advantage relative to its energetic cost? If the toxin merely allows them to kill the insects they infect, I believe it'd just tamp down the population without downright eliminating it.
The comparison to historic disasters caused by the introduction of invasive species can not be understated. Maybe the net positive is good, but there are still negative effects as of yet undiscovered. It would be nice to find a solution with only net positive, but we seem to live in a world of tradeoffs.
Do you mean overstated? If the comparison can't be understated, that implies that it's completely irrelevant and should be ignored; the rest of your comment seems to argue the opposite.
The issue I can see from such techniques is the same issue with all pesticides and that is are these species we've deemed pests necessary for the food web? I know it seems silly but apparently mosquitoes are a major biomass source for fish and other species which may not be easily substituted with a less dangerous one. Maybe the more correct answer isn't killing off the mosquitoes which feed off humans but find a way to eliminate malaria itself. I'm being naive in my assessment, to be honest, but that's just my thoughts on the matter.
If this works, GMO seem interesting but fraught with all sorts of unknowns. Why can't a similar effort that cleared malaria from the American South after WW2 be applied again, but on a larger scale (sans horrible insecticides)? https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...
My understanding was that those horrible insecticides were the primary thing that worked. The link you posted mentions about draining breeding sites, but seems to be saying that DDT application was the biggest component: "It consisted primarily of DDT application to the interior surfaces of rural homes or entire premises in counties where malaria was reported to have been prevalent in recent years."
>I grew up with parents that urged me to prevent pools of standing water, but don’t lots of non-mosquito insects need standing water to breed?
Sure, they can use the other pools of standing water not near humans. The reason it works to limit some species of mosquito (mostly aedes aegypti) is that they preferentially seek to bite humans and so live near them. Other bugs seek out plants and other bugs so they can live elsewhere.
There are more than 7 billion humans in the world and lots of agricultural land is required to feed the ones in cities. How much land area is not near humans?
quite - presumably there are other animals eating these insects.
Then again, malaria kills lots and lots of people every year, and I suspect if I was in a malaria-prone country I might feel different about the balance of protecting humans vs potential ecological effects (even if in the long term this might cause big negative changes)
Those "pools" are already man-made ecological systems. Not much to upset there. And you really don't want to live in a swamp, so any swamps that occupy desirable real estate are pretty much f*ed anyway.
I know that certain species of Killifish in Africa can survive and reproduce in pools left behind by foot-prints. So, yes, quite interesting micro-ecosystems can exist.
I realize I could have made my point more explicit: I suspect that we should do this so that we can remove the incentives for humans to spread pesticides and do other habitat-damaging things.
Thousands of insects and animals species appeared and disappeared before humans existed, countless of times, so I wouldn't give that much weight to existent equilibriums; what we can do is being aware of the changes, e.g. if we detect a sudden increase in spiders population we can check what is killing the frogs and act accordingly
Mere habitable area is already not the main constraint by far. Farmland isn't even as increased yield has lead to a decrease and market breaking surpluses for almost a century with lesser yield boosts. If habitable land was the constraint we would see ruralization - instead we see urbanization even when policies favor the suburban.
Well then you could solve Malaria by moving away from infested places, I suppose.
Not yet convinced that land use is actually shrinking, but will google. And what about the rain forests? Why burn them down, if there is enough land already?
>The researchers say their aim is not to make the insects extinct but to help stop the spread of malaria.
Nothing ever matters less than your, "aim". Intentions are massively overrated. What matters are the actual effects as measured in objective reality. One of the many reasons society is the toilet that it is is because so many judge initiatives and propsals on what they are "intended" to do or what the "aim" of a proposed action is. The Inquisitor who burns you alive because he intends to purify your soul is just as bad as psycho who burns you at the stake because he wants to watch you burn.
The fungus they use is already widespread in nature. Their "version" is probably less well adapted to nature than the "original", and should be out-competed by the wildtype at worst.
But if I understand the article correctly, the fungus is quite deadly to mosquitos, achieving "local" extinction quickly, which also stops further spreading of the fungus.
Sure, but the first step of achieving an actual effect is to aim to achieve it, then think about how to achieve that aim.
I know that it's frustrating when even scientists sometimes act with naive recklessness. A prime example is when people in the social sciences or economics don't think about individuals' incentives enough. But in this case I doubt that the people in question are unaware of the risk of overshooting their target.
We talk about a plan to disseminate a potent lethal poison claiming moral reasons. Not unlike releasing gas sarin in metro (for highly moral reasons also, everybody has a good reason stuck in their head). Killing millions to save thousands and so. The main difference here is that is a lethal stuff regenerated constantly and released in the air at random days. Yup, this could be worse than sarin attacks. Any fail would be permanent.
There are dozens of spider poisons known that are weak or harmless for people. They had choosen instead the poison that is worst... not for the insects, the worst for us. The more efficient killing people.
And they plan to give this people's serial killer to fungi, to spread it under the soil and into the air. Fungi kingdom is a poorly studiated group of life beings, with a sophisticate defensive methabolism and a complex ecology. Several species can associate and fuse into one (lichens) and two species can be different forms of the same species; therefore there is some risk of horizontal propagation of the modified gene to other species with unpredictable comsequences.
Forget pot smokers, this people should receive inmediately a visit from FBI in their headquarters. They have a lot of things to explain, and I'm talking seriously.
I can't help to wonder myself how they though that releasing in the nature a creature able to synthesize venom of funnel-web spider was a good idea. Is astonishing.
Are this organisations, supposedly full of smart people, so hierarchical that nobody could point to the obvious elephant in the room? Even a child could see it coming.
How could it be stopped if something went wrong? It's not like a chemical agent that you just stop applying when you notice adverse effects. This is a living thing. Living things can procreate, mutate, enter new niches and the only deciding factor is the rate of reproduction. Life doesn't optimize for killing malaria-carrying mosquitoes, it optimizes for rate of reproduction and survival. As soon as there is a mutation that can extend the niche to another target, this will happen. And getting such a match doesn't have to be via a mutation on the fungus either, it can also be one of the target, making it susceptible to it.
How do you make sure these things don't happen? I'm worried that the answer is that you can't.
(Edit: I'm not even talking about engineered organisms, just have a look at a list of invasive species)