Certainly kill them all in places where they wouldn't have been without the effects of humans. What we created we can destroy.
I say eradicate them all. I currently live in one of the most malaria endemic areas and there isn't a single rainforest. In fact, some of the most high-risk areas for malaria carrying mosquitos are in Sahelian parts of Africa or countries south of the equator.
Besides, with so many different anti-malarial medicines available, there aren't any rainforests now unreachable to companies in need of timber. The only defenseless victims of malaria are those too poor to move/build better structures/buy effective medication.
Incidentally: The argument that eradicating mosquitoes wouldn't be too bad (emphasis mine).
There are 3,500 named species of mosquito, of which only a couple of hundred bite or bother humans. They live on almost every continent and habitat, and serve important functions in numerous ecosystems. "Mosquitoes have been on Earth for more than 100 million years," says Murphy, "and they have co-evolved with so many species along the way." Wiping out a species of mosquito could leave a predator without prey, or a plant without a pollinator. And exploring a world without mosquitoes is more than an exercise in imagination: intense efforts are under way to develop methods that might rid the world of the most pernicious, disease-carrying species (see 'War against the winged').
Yet in many cases, scientists acknowledge that the ecological scar left by a missing mosquito would heal quickly as the niche was filled by other organisms. Life would continue as before -- or even better. When it comes to the major disease vectors, "it's difficult to see what the downside would be to removal, except for collateral damage", says insect ecologist Steven Juliano, of Illinois State University in Normal. A world without mosquitoes would be "more secure for us", says medical entomologist Carlos Brisola Marcondes from the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil. "The elimination of Anopheles would be very significant for mankind."
I can accept that there will be be ecological consequences, but they will be minor in comparison to the benefit of not having fucking mosquitoes around anymore.
Plus, there are lots of other species that are also harmed by mosquitoes. We would be doing them a solid.
No, a #slatepitch would be arguing that the real ecological harm would be eliminating the malaria parasite because it evolved naturally too.
One could definitely imagine similar arguments in favor of bears, wolves, sabretooth tigers, smallpox, plague, and snow.
It verges on Peter Singer territory.
3, 6: No, for real, Slate did recently propose killing all the mosquitoes.
One could definitely imagine similar arguments in favor of bears, wolves, sabretooth tigers, smallpox, plague, and snow.
Also HIV, typhoid, cholera and infantile diarrhoea.
"I'll say this for the mosquito - at least it keeps the darkies' numbers under control" is not the kind of argument one really expects to read here in the early 21st century.
This is the really interesting bit, which I hadn't come across before: "In Australia, the Eliminate Dengue programme is using naturally occurring bacteria to reduce the ability of mosquitoes to pass dengue between people.
"This is a more realistic approach for mitigating mosquito-borne disease," says Lounibos.
Meanwhile, scientists in the US have bred a GM mosquito with a new gene in the laboratory that makes it resistant to the malaria parasite."
And that way, potentially, evolution might be working for us rather than against us - a malaria-resistant mosquito might be slightly fitter (because no Plasmodium burden in its salivary glands) and so the trait could spread naturally.
2 is also quite right. There are plenty of non-malarial rainforests - montane forests, for example - and plenty of non-rainforest malarial areas.
This is the really interesting bit, which I hadn't come across before: "In Australia, the Eliminate Dengue programme is using naturally occurring bacteria to reduce the ability of mosquitoes to pass dengue between people.
Rabbits are also naturally occurring.
I'm more than willing to accept the collateral damage that would be caused by killing all mosquitoes. A bunch of species that depend on them would die out but that's a blip compared to the size of the mass extinction that's happening now anyway.
The #Slatepitch that can be linked
Is not the eternal #Slatepitch.
"The Slatepitch that can be linked is the eternal Slatepitch. Read why here."
Why not split the difference and just eliminate all of the mosquitoes that prey on humans? That'd leave their niches available to be filled by neighboring mosquitoes or another critter, but that should be a lot less destructive than eliminating the whole family.