Support NeoGAF

[HammerOfThor]

We should kill them all just to bring them back. Then kill them all again and repeat until we master the process of killing off a species, and bringing back a species.

 

[ZephyrFate]

*clears throat*

SPIDERS NEXT!

Spiders do a lot of good, though.

 

[Speevy]

I don't think anything bad could come of this.

 

[amar212]

If humans were wiped out, I doubt it'll have any dire effect on the planet. Just saying.

Yap.

Planet would celebrate, to be honest.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Yap.

Planet would celebrate, to be honest.

Taken from Gizmodo.

 

[Medalion]

Like something out of X-Files

 

[water_wendi]

.

 

[Puddles]

Edit: If this works, next species on the chopping block should be bedbugs. But then if that works, which species do we kill next? I could see us getting carried away.

Jesus Christ, fuck bedbugs. I got annihilated by bedbugs in a Slovakian hostel. Those things are a scourge.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Can't believe no one else posted it.

Parker Lewis? You lost man, big time.

 

[echoshifting]

Taken from Gizmodo.

Well, that's fucking depressing.

Sorry, Earth.

 

[Joates]

So the military figured this shit how long ago?

21st century warfare has some serious potential to be very interesting...

 

[PdotMichael]

Yap.

Planet would celebrate, to be honest.

and you are still alive, crazy or?

but it's cool to say mankind sucks

 

[Dan]

There are seven billion humans on earth. We should be trying to control the size of our own population instead of worrying about nuisance insects.

I would hardly use the term "nuisance" to describe the diseases these creatures help spread.

 

[Devolution]

There are seven billion humans on earth. We should be trying to control the size of our own population instead of worrying about nuisance insects.

Know how easy it is for them to say "we're fucking with some bugs" then "let's give birth control and contraception out to everybody."

 

[Puddles]

Mosquitoes aren't sentient. It doesn't matter if we wipe them out.

 

[Forever]

I don't think anything bad could come of this.

What's that from?

 

[Mariah Carey]

Are some of you guys seriously advocating the deaths of innocent people just to keep the human population in check?

I mean, you might as well say, "You can't cure AIDS we need those people to die to decrease famine!"

 

[Puddles]

The Ghost of Christmas Present had a pretty good line about decreasing the surplus population.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I see no problem with this. What's the worst that could happen?

*15 years later, everything is dead or dying on Earth*

 

[hellclerk]

Instead of mosquitoes, they should be genetically modifying people in those area so they stop breeding. There's plenty of enough people in this world. Maybe the diseases are just a way of controlling them.

I agree, and by removing these insects, population issues in challenged nations will accelerate...the earth has an odd way of regulating / fighting back against man's heavy handed way of ruining it, if its not 'skeeters spreading disease, it'll be something else, and probably worse.

(what eats mosquitos? what food chain will we stomp out?)

There are seven billion humans on earth. We should be trying to control the size of our own population instead of worrying about nuisance insects.

And I'm sure next you'd like for a eugenics program to be instituted with your clearly superior genetic code. It's easy for people to make declarations about population control, but it remains an unethical practice.

Funny enough, after proper development and stabilization of social, political, and economic conditions, birth rates go down and regulate themselves. This can be seen in both the macro scale of entire countries over time to microcosmic scales within population minorities integrating into their society, i.e. Irish-American birth rates between the turn of the century and now. Actively attempting to control populations will just run down a slippery slope in any case.

 

[UberTag]

I uhh.. wouldn't worry about it too much Ian because uhh.. if the history of evolution has taught us anything it's that uhhh... life uhh.. finds a way.

I'm sorry, you did what?

Malcolm may disapprove but Goldblum doesn't care one lick.
He's busy ensuring population growth of a different kind.

 

[Puddles]

I'd actually be perfectly fine with a eugenics program so long as no one was actually killed. Forced sterilization isn't too bad, IMO.

 

[zoku88]

I'd actually be perfectly fine with a eugenics program so long as no one was actually killed. Forced sterilization isn't too bad, IMO.

Welcome to the 30s...

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Forced sterilization isn't too bad, IMO.

For what purpose? And to whom do we begin with? Rape victims, the poor, and those of "inferior" races like last time?

 

[Ferrio]

Good point.

 

[Grinchy]

I'm going to join the scared crowd who feels like this will only breed a new type of super strong mosquito.

 

[hellclerk]

I'd actually be perfectly fine with a eugenics program so long as no one was actually killed. Forced sterilization isn't too bad, IMO.

I'm going to join the scared crowd who feels like this will only breed a new type of super strong mosquito.

Only concerns I have are impacts on the ecosystem, though truthfully this will likely be small considering the other insects that can replace the mosquito's niche in the food chain.

 

[Puddles]

Welcome to the 30s...

Everyone always assumes that eugenics could only be done the way Hitler did it.

Oh ye of no imagination.

For what purpose? And to whom do we begin with? Rape victims, the poor, and those of "inferior" races like last time?

Two Hitler invocations in a row. God damn.

No, I'd try to eliminate the genes that lead to inheritable genetic disorders. Also, these people wouldn't be barred from adopting.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

While I'm sure this is done with good intentions, to slow the spread of mosquito-carried disease in developing countries, surely this'll fuck something else up.

 

[Orayn]

While I'm sure this is done with good intentions, to slow the spread of mosquito-carried disease in developing countries, surely this'll fuck something else up.

Why? Because it always does in sci-fi movies? We've had some pretty good results from huge, crazy-sounding plans like this in the past. See: Artificially producing ammonia, eliminating polio, drastically reducing birth defects by iodizing salt. There's no reason any of these things have to go horribly awry.

 

[Fusebox]

What animals/insects survive by eating Mosquitos and/or their larvae?

Thats my only concern, otherwise exterminate away!!

 

[hellclerk]

Everyone always assumes that eugenics could only be done the way Hitler did it.

Oh ye of no imagination.

Two Hitler invocations in a row. God damn.

No, I'd try to eliminate the genes that lead to inheritable genetic disorders. Also, these people wouldn't be barred from adopting.

Who the hell said anything about Hitler? The concept of a "superior race" is as old as the earliest of human civilization, and still just as wrong. Eugenics in general, in concept and philosophy, is unethical, and has seen many independent, unrelated, and equally unethical implementations. Genetic disorders are things we're actually making great strides in with medicine without eugenics. Gene therapy has become a fast growing element of modern medicine and it's making headway without the need to selectively breed. You're being as naive as all the other eugenics proponents, but you know what they say the road to hell is paved in...

And how did this debate get thrown into human populations? This thread is supposed to be about evil mutant mosquitoes taking over the world. >:|

 

[AgentChris]

 

[ZephyrFate]

Are some of you guys seriously advocating the deaths of innocent people just to keep the human population in check?

I mean, you might as well say, "You can't cure AIDS we need those people to die to decrease famine!"

Do it the Tuf Voyaging way and sterilize the populace.

 

[Puddles]

Who the hell said anything about Hitler? The concept of a "superior race" is as old as the earliest of human civilization, and still just as wrong. Eugenics in general, in concept and philosophy, is unethical, and has seen many independent, unrelated, and equally unethical implementations. Genetic disorders are things we're actually making great strides in with medicine without eugenics. Gene therapy has become a fast growing element of modern medicine and it's making headway without the need to selectively breed. You're being as naive as all the other eugenics proponents, but you know what they say the road to hell is paved in...

I really don't see the issue. I don't know, maybe I'm biased since I have no intention of creating children of my own. I just don't see reproduction as an inalienable right, especially when curtailing that right can prevent untold amounts of suffering in future generations.

If gene therapy is coming along as well as you say it is, then that's obviously the way to go. It's really just results I'm interested in; the methods are irrelevant.

 

[ch0mp]

Why? Because it always does in sci-fi movies? We've had some pretty good results from huge, crazy-sounding plans like this in the past. See: Artificially producing ammonia, eliminating polio, drastically reducing birth defects by iodizing salt. There's no reason any of these things have to go horribly awry.

Because no huge, crazy sounding plan has ever backfired right?

 

[Raist]

I'm reminded of the Biosphere-2 experiment, wherein all the insects died. Instead of resulting in the deaths of plants that required these insects to pollinate, other animals (ants and cockroaches) ended up taking up pollination duties much to the surprise of the observers. I don't want to make out like I'm saying that knocking out species willie-nillie is fine and no problem, but I do want to stress the point that it's not quite as fragile as many would have us believe.

Does not compute.

 

[hellclerk]

I really don't see the issue. I don't know, maybe I'm biased since I have no intention of creating children of my own. I just don't see reproduction as an inalienable right, especially when curtailing that right can prevent untold amounts of suffering in future generations.

If gene therapy is coming along as well as you say it is, then that's obviously the way to go. It's really just results I'm interested in; the methods are irrelevant.

It falls under the broad tenet of liberty of person, which is an inalienable set of rights. Preventing two people from having consensual sex violates their right to do what they please. Similarly, forcible sterilization violates a person's control over their body as well since it's an alteration to their body's natural function. Even after conception, it's the right of the woman to maintain her child in her person (or evict it, the premise behind Roe V. Wade). Basically, because the liberty of the person is an inalienable right, you cannot legislate or enforce anti-reproduction methods. There is no ethical or legal way around it. Eugenics and population control is, aside from legally impossible in the US, philosophically unsound.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Does not compute.

I meant all the normal pollinating insects, obviously.

 

[Tawpgun]

Kill them all.

 

[Pandaman]

For what purpose? And to whom do we begin with? Rape victims, the poor, and those of "inferior" races like last time?

every male child gets the snip.

no more rape pregnancies, no more teen pregnancies, no more unwanted pregnancies of any kind. any couple capable of supporting a child can have one through invitro fertilization and on the plus side, you can use the time to screen out genetic disease.

 

[guidop]

What animals/insects survive by eating Mosquitos and/or their larvae?

Thats my only concern, otherwise exterminate away!!

Frogs? Well frogs are gone anyway global warming will take care of them

 

[big_z]

we had so many mosquitoes this year that it was impossible to go outside for 90% of the summer. you would have clusters of them all over you just trying to pump gas into your car, it was awful. this new retarded mosquito cant come soon enough

What animals/insects survive by eating Mosquitos and/or their larvae?

birds and spiders eat them but there's tons of other bugs they eat too.

 

[strata8]

we had so many mosquitoes this year that it was impossible to go outside for 90% of the summer. you would have clusters of them all over you just trying to pump gas into your car, it was awful. this new retarded mosquito cant come soon enough




birds and spiders eat them but there's tons of other bugs they eat too.

This is only for malaria-carrying species AFAIK.

 

[Puddles]

It falls under the broad tenet of liberty of person, which is an inalienable set of rights. Preventing two people from having consensual sex violates their right to do what they please. Similarly, forcible sterilization violates a person's control over their body as well since it's an alteration to their body's natural function. Even after conception, it's the right of the woman to maintain her child in her person (or evict it, the premise behind Roe V. Wade). Basically, because the liberty of the person is an inalienable right, you cannot legislate or enforce anti-reproduction methods. There is no ethical or legal way around it. Eugenics and population control is, aside from legally impossible in the US, philosophically unsound.

When did I say I wanted to deny people the right to have consensual sex? As far as forced sterilization violating a person's control over his body (I say his because it would be most practical to do it on the male side), my answer would be "Meh. Not really a big deal." Since society is trending in a direction where we want to keep everyone alive as long as possible (which is a good thing), it makes sense to rig things so that the people who are born will have as many advantages as possible.

Obviously this would be currently impossible in the United States. This isn't something that could go into effect next year.

every male child gets the snip.

no more rape pregnancies, no more teen pregnancies, no more unwanted pregnancies of any kind. any couple capable of supporting a child can have one through invitro fertilization and on the plus side, you can use the time to screen out genetic disease.

*Brofist

Then at some point after the male's 18th birthday, if he's holding down a job, he can have the tubes reconnected. Simple as that.

 

[aronnov reborn]

sometimes i still wish we only had horse and buggie.

 

[BorkBork]

Such a terrifying little short story.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Are some of you guys seriously advocating the deaths of innocent people just to keep the human population in check?

I mean, you might as well say, "You can't cure AIDS we need those people to die to decrease famine!"

I was talking with a lab partner about synthetic farming methods that are necessary to meet our population growth, and he said something along the lines of how that no, organic is just what we should focus on even if it is a little bit more expensive. I said that there's no way at all for us to meet that demand solely by xyz methods and that realistically, the poorest couple billion people would not be able to afford the food in such a scenario today. He said that that would act as a sort of population control and may limit environmental impact...

People often react first and think later about things like this since they see human death as unavoidable and at the same time, environmental conservation as something we must constantly strive for (in some vague way). Not saying that's not true to an extent, but letting humans die because we don't want to piss off mother gaia is so stupid.

 

[ch0mp]

I was talking with a lab partner about synthetic farming methods that are necessary to meet our population growth, and he said something along the lines of how that no, organic is just what we should focus on even if it is a little bit more expensive. I said that there's no way at all for us to meet that demand solely by xyz methods and that realistically, the poorest couple billion people would not be able to afford the food in such a scenario today. He said that that would act as a sort of population control and may limit environmental impact...

People often react first and think later about things like this since they see human death as unavoidable and at the same time, environmental conservation as something we must constantly strive for (in some vague way). Not saying that's not true to an extent, but letting humans die because we don't want to piss off mother gaia is so stupid.

Intensive farming practices are not a long term solution. They caused more problems than they solved.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Instead of mosquitoes, they should be genetically modifying people in those area so they stop breeding. There's plenty of enough people in this world. Maybe the diseases are just a way of controlling them.

You're welcome to sterilize yourself at any time. Until you do, (well, and even after) you can shove your neocolonialist eugenics straight up your ass.

Anyway, this seems significantly less dangerous than pesticides.

If anything they need increasing, to help put a dent in population levels

For fuck's sake.

You realize you're talking about real people you're consigning to death by malaria or worse, and not manipulating some numbers in a spreadsheet, right?

If we're voting on who gets kicked off of the lifeboat, cast my ballot for shithead westerners like you who are vaccuuming up far more of the world's resources while apparently being completely devoid of empathy.