Exactly. France also has very few migrants from the countries 'Iran attacked': they're largely from North African and Francophone African countries. A lot of inconsistencies and half facts in that comment.
It's surprising how often the critics of animal rights activism are people lacking empathy and logical thinking.
> maybe peta can offer themselves as human test subjects to study disease and medicine
One of the issues with animal testing is that there's very few transferable results. Animal testing continues because it's the done thing, and "better than nothing". We're getting few public health benefits when we weigh it against the death of the millions of animals killed for science.
> this kind of advocating causes litterally violence to some of these researchers
> does peta prefer only big pharma to be able to do research and sell simple medicines for ludicrious prices
Lazy. Make an effort at least, please.
> i also wonder why they dont fight for human rights instead of animal rights
This is the part that makes me confident about your lack of logical thinking, if you were wondering. Why are you on HN instead of fighting for human rights? Are you a Nazi? Why aren't physicists fighting for human rights? I mean sure space is important, and essential, but look into a dead kid's eyes and tell me you want to work on making telescopes better.
> try looking one of those kids in the eyes and tell them
Pretty certain that kids are much more likely to advocate for animal rights than adults are. Show these videos to your kids and ask them.
> a few monkeys suffering (which is still horrible but magnitudes less i can tell u)
What you can tell us seems to be of limited value...
> violent rioters use the excuse of the peaceful organized protest to infiltrate and wreak havoc
This is not true, and very much the kind of propaganda spewed by the (far-)right, please do not trust it.
The entire crowd chants very explicit chants against the government and police, gathers around fires in the street, shouts at police when they attack the demonstrators or fire gas canisters and flash-bang grenades. The crowds that get out are not getting smaller, despite mainstream media and government equating the protests with violent looters, so it seems everyone marching feels a need to. There are looters, but they're a tiny, insignificant minority.
The protests are violent because the repression is violent, and because they are marching against real suffering.
Someone sees an opportunity to get some internet points, has zero engagement with the discussion, makes an announcement for a half-baked project: this is how your 2 sentences look. I think your 'initiative' is perfectly illustrating what that community is trying to avoid.
I think they don't know much about history but think they do, and believe that the Crusades were the West heroically coming to help oppressed people because Arabs. 'They started first', basically.
Meeting standards is nothing but a formality, a form to fill. The PhDs and lab staff doing the killing, if they have any qualms about the act itself or just the purpose of the killing, generally justify it away as being what they have to do to keep the job. The "humane" killing methods are learned on the job through trial and error, and such errors keep happening regularly to experienced staff.
Prior to lockdowns, many/most lab animals just got killed: interesting quality of life standard.
What's written in lab policies is not at all how it happens in reality.
It was the language of the educated because of the Roman Empire. The elites used to study how to be Roman elites before the 5th century, and when Rome fell they just continued, as it was the established sign of higher class. The elite has been educated by Cicero for the last 2 millennia, and continues to be so.
A good analogy is French being the language of the elite in Britain, well after the Normans got merged into the general population.
> and when Rome fell they just continued, as it was the established sign of higher class.
Well not in the west where the elite was replaced by uneducated barbarians for several centuries and it took quite a while for the church to teach them how to read and write again.
Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war in Ukraine, there was no peace in Afghanistan, in the Caucasus, in Syria, in Georgia, and in Crimea.
Russian misinformation and funding of far-right parties had never stopped. Every country in Russia's vicinity knew that it was coming for them. In the West relations were peaceful indeed, because all these wars were with faraway peoples.
If you're not a paid shill but genuinely believe what you're saying, you're what they call a useful idiot. This attempt at the apology of Russia, in this pretend calm tone, with emotional bits peppered throughout, is disgusting.
A lot of people who came to the West thanks to the peacefulness of Russia also want to go rebuild their countries 'Some day. Maybe.'
And lower down you say Ukraine should have some neutral autonomous territory. Maybe parts of Poland and of the Baltics and of Finland will also know the prosperity and peace that comes with 'neutrality'.
I’m describing what I’m observing on the ground in Europe: a growing segment are sick of the endless slaughter by Western entities and indeed by their own nations involvement in atrocious wars, resulting in an inundation of refugees. It’s not just Ukraine - its all war.
It is Western wars producing the conditions for 35 million war refugees to flood the worlds borders.
Do you think all Germans are ignorant of what the warmongers in their state have contributed to the situation in Gaza? And that they are being nevertheless led by those same warmongers into yet more catastrophe?
A rising segment of the German population are sick of frothy-mouthed warmongers having the podium and recognize that if they don’t change the leadership who brought only war and calamity to the world, it will end in disaster.
Yes, Russia needs better rulers, and yes Russia should face justice for its wars - they won’t get this at the end of a European spear, however. The only people who can do anything effective about Russia, are Russians: Germans understand this very, very well. And they are turning to apply the very same rule to their own state.
Because Russia has a long way to go to come even close to the atrocities of Western allies. The USA and its allies are a far, far worse danger to the world, by orders of magnitude. Russia is following the Western lead on war atrocities, and we have, by far, the worst stats of them all.
When we prosecute our own war criminals, only then will we have the moral altitude to jump on Russias case - but not before that happens. The populations of Poland, the Baltics, and Finland may not understand their own states’ culpability for contributing to atrocity - but Germans sure do. (Note: see also, France.)
Intelligent, informed Europeans know that the only path to peace involves personal responsibility for the war crimes of their own states.
So they let their democracies function. Those politicians who promise to rein in the warmongers - whatever else their parties promise - are gaining traction because of this fact.
I'm much more puzzled by the many retorts to people asking about the unforeseen consequences of eradicating a whole species given how little we know about ecosystems.
Many such comments are very dumb, asking 'and how do you feel about viruses, screwworms, etc.?', but since you say this is a genuine question: mosquitoes are numerous and we know that they represent a source of food for many species (bats, birds, other insects). As far as I know, there is genuine debate among scientists about the role that mosquitoes play in their ecosystems. Everyone here has seen species of animals and plants eradicated and then being reintroduced or replaced, when we realise what role they were playing.
Again, assuming you're asking in good faith: you're asking why these commenters are so concerned while humanity is eradicating species all the time anyway: these are not the same populations... I'd wager there is a big overlap between those wondering about consequences and those taking action for the planet (not eating animal products, not flying, etc.). Similarly, I'd wager there's overlap between those posting such illogical retorts, and those eating animals at every meal and driving their car daily.
I see the same ridiculous retorts in HN debates about the condition of animals.
Okay, but we aren't talking about the eradication of all mosquitos. Approximately 10% of known mosquito species are potential carriers of human disease (https://entomologytoday.org/2022/07/26/less-than-10-percent-...), and discussions about eradication efforts generally revolve around just the Anopheles genus.
There's an excellent book on the impact of the mosquito on humanity, and a brief overview of some of that subject here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/how-mosquitoes.... These species of mosquito are and have been one of the most significant threats to human health for all of our existence.
I don't think argument-from-ignorance should be more convincing here than it would be on any other subject. There is some debate among researchers, sure, but published biologists have been making arguments in favor of eradication for over 20 years (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/opinion/a-bug-s-death.htm...). If someone is being intellectually honest in objecting to this on the grounds of the fragility of ecosystems, then they must also be an equally loud voice against the use and manufacture of glyphosate. That one chemical alone is already having a far greater impact on insect populations, yet you can buy it at your local hardware stores.
So yeah, I genuinely don't understand the reasoning here. It feels like a dumber version of the trolley problem, where a perceived inaction that has far larger negative consequences is preferable to an action with more limited ones -- except in this case, it's not even right to describe our current impacts on ecosystems as "inaction".
I suspect that if an article were published tomorrow that found that, through some previously-unknown mechanism, the expected rise in global temperatures over the next 10 years would have a side-effect of killing all mosquito populations, that article wouldn't even make the front page of HN. Nobody much would care, aside from those few recurring voices mourning our future.
More cynically, I also suspect that since the worst impacts on human health are occurring in tropical populations, westerners find it much easier to argue in favor of protecting this particular pest.
Do you think animals pick their food source based on whether humans have taxonomized them under a similar heading, like "mosquito?"
Would an alien species contemplating the eradication of wheat be correct to think "that won't hurt Homo sapiens much, wheat makes up <1% of our taxonomic category 'things that grow in dirt!'?
Again: the effect you're referring to here, food chain collapse, is already occurring, but on much larger and more indiscriminate scales. Meanwhile, there is scant real evidence that Anopheles is a critical component of the food chain. Here's the most fair treatment on the subject that I could find: https://archive.ph/h12qU
I've been following this subject since at least Olivia Judson's article was published back in 2003. Over the last 23 years, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet made a strong case that Anopheles was a necessary part of the ecosystem. If your alien species were unable to identify wheat as an important food source, one would question how they managed to figure out interstellar travel.
The most vocal arguments against are all of the kind we're seeing here: "we don't know what might happen" (a statement of the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature that goes back in fiction to at least Mary Shelley), "we should assume they're necessary" (and yet all other necessary critters seem to be optional), "something needs them, we just don't know what" (in 23 years, biologists have so far identified a single spider that maybe or maybe not depends on them).
And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
I would be easily swayed by evidence of large-scale ecosystem destabilization if Anopheles were eradicated. To date, not only is there no such evidence, but there is some evidence to the contrary (species of mosquito have been introduced to island habitats where they went on to have significant effects on local animal populations).
Food chain collapse happening elsewhere is a reason not to risk creating more of it. It makes ecosystems more fragile, not less.
> If your alien species were unable to identify wheat as an important food source, one would question how they managed to figure out interstellar travel.
Per your prior point: we are causing food chain collapse all over the globe. We are not an alien species with a good track record on this.
> "we don't know what might happen" (a statement of the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature that goes back in fiction to at least Mary Shelley)
Per your prior point: the unintended consequences of science meddling with nature also goes back in reality to the widespread food chain collapse that our science is already unintentionally causing all over the globe.
The following two arguments are not ones that I've made, and aren't necessary to justify extreme caution.
> And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
Obviously the people arguing against you believe there's a chance that altering course would be far, far worse than this already-not-good outcome.
> I would be easily swayed by evidence of large-scale ecosystem destabilization if Anopheles were eradicated. To date, not only is there no such evidence, but there is some evidence to the contrary (species of mosquito have been introduced to island habitats where they went on to have significant effects on local animal populations).
Yes I'm in the same boat as you. But note that this is a fundamentally different position than "other things eat things that humans call 'mosquitos' so it should be fine."
> Food chain collapse happening elsewhere is a reason not to risk creating more of it.
Granted, but also food chain collapse has been happening for a while now and yet Anopheles is still not anything's preferred food source. It really seems to fit the definition of a strictly non-beneficial parasite.
> ...science meddling with nature also goes back in reality to the widespread food chain collapse that our science is already unintentionally causing all over the globe.
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.
> > And these are the arguments that condemn a million people a year to death.
> Obviously the people arguing against you believe there's a chance that altering course would be far, far worse than this already-not-good outcome.
I seriously, seriously doubt the people making this argument have thought all that hard about this. The more likely scenario is that the millionish dead per year is happening in other people's countries and therefore it's not thought about at all.
I wonder what the factor-of-10 scale would be for the number of Zika-affected births in the US before Americans suddenly became overwhelmingly in favor of eradicating these mosquito species. 100? 1,000? 10,000? Over-under at 10,000, I guess?
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
> The idea that ecosystems carry plenty of backup, so if a small number of species become extinct there is little harm, has been greatly overestimated, according to the largest global study of its kind.
reply