5 ms·

Good news! Although am i the only one a little disappointed that this is only the 2nd we've wiped out in our long history?

by Kelliot 14y ago

jfb 14y ago
It's illustrative to compare the number of parasitic species eliminated to that of non-parasitic species. It's a whole lot easier to knock the crap out of a passenger pigeon than A. aegypti, because the pigeon hasn't been under the selective pressure that the mosquito has.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I'm not able to find any good information on it, but wouldn't there have been some host-specific parasites that went extinct along with their host? It's possible they're even uncatalogued ones, if (as seems likely) parasites that target species other than humans or commercially valuable livestock aren't as well documented as those that do target us and our animals. From that perspective, it's not very surprising that human-targeted parasites haven't been going extinct without substantial purposeful effort, because their host has been very successful at increasing and spreading its population. If you think of the human population as the relevant "environment" for those species, then the environment is in very good shape...
  - jfb 14y ago
    Oh absolutely. The idea that there's a comprehensive catalog of species extinct and extant is a joke. And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species. No wonder that vectors that spread human disease are also so successful -- so much meat to prey upon.
  - chubbard 14y ago
    "And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species." Oh I don't know cock roaches thrive really well in every zone too. And they carry countless diseases too, along with their redundant systems and all. Or how about rats? Also littered with pests themselves there isn't a place on this earth that hasn't been touched by rats.
    - jfb 14y ago
      Roaches and rats would never have spread as far as they have without humans carrying them along.
    - FreeFull 14y ago
      How do cockroaches and rats cope with Antarctica?
      - jfb 14y ago
        They don't. The caloric expenditure required to survive in a desert like that is only available to humanity.
        Karunamon 14y ago
        And bears.. and penguins.. and lemmings..
        jfb 14y ago
        Well, you're ⅓ there, considering that there are no terrestrial mammals in Antarctica. But I was talking about weed species, not those particularly evolved for a given niche.
        chc 14y ago
        You appear to have the Arctic and Antarctic confused. They're opposite ends of the world. There aren't any bears or lemmings in Antarctica at all. And there are penguins in the region, but they're amphibious rather than really being stuck on Antarctica.
      - Dove 14y ago
        We don't cope with Antarctica all that well. Otherwise there would be a permanent population down there.
- jws 14y ago
  I think the passenger pigeon just got surprised by a new threat to which it couldn't adapt fast enough. It happens. Their breeding strategy required massive colonies to fill the local predators' bellies and still have survivors. They didn't really count on a predator that would take entire colonies. Nets, alcohol soaked grain, fire arms, explosives, coupled with a huge national demand coupled with a vast transportation network were nothing like foxes, snakes, and birds of prey. Musk oxen have the same problem. "Back into a mass protecting the young with your heads facing outward" doesn't work well against rifles. They don't have much of a plan B. Being dark on a barren, white landscape much of the year also sucks. Many of the pelagic fish also fall into this category. They aren't built for a predator that will scoop up an entire 4000kg school of fish in one swipe.
Hemospectrum 14y ago
There are plenty of dangerous lifeforms we could realistically stamp out -- grizzly bears, for example. The pertinent question is whether it would be worth the cost. This organism can be defeated forever with handmade water filters, and we'll never miss it. But we could burn all the swamps in the world (along with countless "bystander" species) and still fail to wipe out malaria.
- pkulak 14y ago
  > Grizzly bears, for example And a terrible example!
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    It was a perfect example. His point was that it would be ridiculous to try.
- jfb 14y ago
  Alpha predators like brown bears kill so few humans that they aren't worth the effort to chase down and exterminate (see Monster Of God by David Quammen). The real monsters are mosquitos and the disease bearing organisms they vector.
- maratd 14y ago
  > There are plenty of dangerous lifeforms we could realistically stamp out -- grizzly bears, for example. Your facetious comment aside, it really depends on what we consider a "lifeform". A number of viruses and bacteria can be wiped out without affecting other species ... largely, because we are their entire ecosystem, almost like this worm. Are most potent weapons are vaccines, antibiotics, and proper hygiene. With a combination of those, we can eliminate much of what currently ails us.
  - morsch 14y ago
    Except we don't have a vaccine for many viruses and on the antibiotics front we're fighting a war against evolution; and arguably we're not using our ammunition very wisely. Or is that fear mongering?
Pinckney 14y ago
We also wiped out rinderpest. It was a cattle disease, but it means a lot from an agricultural perspective.
ams6110 14y ago
We were well on our way to wiping out malaria until DDT was banned. Millions of people have died due to that decision.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  DDT is still used for mosquito control.
- hartror 14y ago
  The argument is that DDT causes at least as many deaths as malaria and loads of collateral damage in the ecosystem. There are significant advances on the horizon that look to be the solution to malaria.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    malaria is particularly widespread, so some pretty strong evidence would be required to establish that DDT killed more people than malaria.
- derleth 14y ago
  > We were well on our way to wiping out malaria until DDT was banned. Wrong: 1. Mosquitoes were becoming DDT-resistant. A lot of them still are. 2. DDT is still used in some places, most notably the ones where malaria is still a problem. 3. Mosquito netting is still a big lifesaver in the regions DDT is still used. Why, if DDT works so well, would we need the massive mosquito netting drives? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/24/ddt/ http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/24/ddt/ > DDT is banned from agricultural use (and rightly so because of environmental damage) but can still be used for disease prevention. JTFCSS pretends that there is a ban so they can hang malaria deaths around the neck of environmentalists. [snip] > Yes, the mosquitoes in Sri Lanka have evolved resistance to DDT. It doesn’t work any more. In fact, that is the reason why they stopped using DDT in Sri Lanka. It wasn’t because of any ban—it was because it stopped being effective.

Good news! Although am i the only one a little disappointed that this is only the 2nd we've wiped out in our long history?

by Kelliot 14y ago

Good news! Although am i the only one a little disappointed that this is only the 2nd we've wiped out in our long history?

jfb 14y ago

It's illustrative to compare the number of parasitic species eliminated to that of non-parasitic species. It's a whole lot easier to knock the crap out of a passenger pigeon than A. aegypti, because the pigeon hasn't been under the selective pressure that the mosquito has.

_delirium 14y ago
I'm not able to find any good information on it, but wouldn't there have been some host-specific parasites that went extinct along with their host? It's possible they're even uncatalogued ones, if (as seems likely) parasites that target species other than humans or commercially valuable livestock aren't as well documented as those that do target us and our animals. From that perspective, it's not very surprising that human-targeted parasites haven't been going extinct without substantial purposeful effort, because their host has been very successful at increasing and spreading its population. If you think of the human population as the relevant "environment" for those species, then the environment is in very good shape...
- jfb 14y ago
  Oh absolutely. The idea that there's a comprehensive catalog of species extinct and extant is a joke. And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species. No wonder that vectors that spread human disease are also so successful -- so much meat to prey upon.
- chubbard 14y ago
  "And humans, with their ability to thrive in basically any climactic zone, are the ultimate pest species." Oh I don't know cock roaches thrive really well in every zone too. And they carry countless diseases too, along with their redundant systems and all. Or how about rats? Also littered with pests themselves there isn't a place on this earth that hasn't been touched by rats.
  - jfb 14y ago
    Roaches and rats would never have spread as far as they have without humans carrying them along.
  - FreeFull 14y ago
    How do cockroaches and rats cope with Antarctica?
    - jfb 14y ago
      They don't. The caloric expenditure required to survive in a desert like that is only available to humanity.
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        And bears.. and penguins.. and lemmings..
        jfb 14y ago
        Well, you're ⅓ there, considering that there are no terrestrial mammals in Antarctica. But I was talking about weed species, not those particularly evolved for a given niche.
        chc 14y ago
        You appear to have the Arctic and Antarctic confused. They're opposite ends of the world. There aren't any bears or lemmings in Antarctica at all. And there are penguins in the region, but they're amphibious rather than really being stuck on Antarctica.
    - Dove 14y ago
      We don't cope with Antarctica all that well. Otherwise there would be a permanent population down there.
jws 14y ago
I think the passenger pigeon just got surprised by a new threat to which it couldn't adapt fast enough. It happens. Their breeding strategy required massive colonies to fill the local predators' bellies and still have survivors. They didn't really count on a predator that would take entire colonies. Nets, alcohol soaked grain, fire arms, explosives, coupled with a huge national demand coupled with a vast transportation network were nothing like foxes, snakes, and birds of prey. Musk oxen have the same problem. "Back into a mass protecting the young with your heads facing outward" doesn't work well against rifles. They don't have much of a plan B. Being dark on a barren, white landscape much of the year also sucks. Many of the pelagic fish also fall into this category. They aren't built for a predator that will scoop up an entire 4000kg school of fish in one swipe.

Hemospectrum 14y ago

There are plenty of dangerous lifeforms we could realistically stamp out -- grizzly bears, for example. The pertinent question is whether it would be worth the cost. This organism can be defeated forever with handmade water filters, and we'll never miss it. But we could burn all the swamps in the world (along with countless "bystander" species) and still fail to wipe out malaria.

pkulak 14y ago
> Grizzly bears, for example And a terrible example!
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  It was a perfect example. His point was that it would be ridiculous to try.
jfb 14y ago
Alpha predators like brown bears kill so few humans that they aren't worth the effort to chase down and exterminate (see Monster Of God by David Quammen). The real monsters are mosquitos and the disease bearing organisms they vector.
maratd 14y ago
> There are plenty of dangerous lifeforms we could realistically stamp out -- grizzly bears, for example. Your facetious comment aside, it really depends on what we consider a "lifeform". A number of viruses and bacteria can be wiped out without affecting other species ... largely, because we are their entire ecosystem, almost like this worm. Are most potent weapons are vaccines, antibiotics, and proper hygiene. With a combination of those, we can eliminate much of what currently ails us.
- morsch 14y ago
  Except we don't have a vaccine for many viruses and on the antibiotics front we're fighting a war against evolution; and arguably we're not using our ammunition very wisely. Or is that fear mongering?

Pinckney 14y ago

We also wiped out rinderpest. It was a cattle disease, but it means a lot from an agricultural perspective.

ams6110 14y ago

We were well on our way to wiping out malaria until DDT was banned. Millions of people have died due to that decision.

maxerickson 14y ago
DDT is still used for mosquito control.
hartror 14y ago
The argument is that DDT causes at least as many deaths as malaria and loads of collateral damage in the ecosystem. There are significant advances on the horizon that look to be the solution to malaria.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  malaria is particularly widespread, so some pretty strong evidence would be required to establish that DDT killed more people than malaria.
derleth 14y ago
> We were well on our way to wiping out malaria until DDT was banned. Wrong: 1. Mosquitoes were becoming DDT-resistant. A lot of them still are. 2. DDT is still used in some places, most notably the ones where malaria is still a problem. 3. Mosquito netting is still a big lifesaver in the regions DDT is still used. Why, if DDT works so well, would we need the massive mosquito netting drives? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/24/ddt/ http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/24/ddt/ > DDT is banned from agricultural use (and rightly so because of environmental damage) but can still be used for disease prevention. JTFCSS pretends that there is a ban so they can hang malaria deaths around the neck of environmentalists. [snip] > Yes, the mosquitoes in Sri Lanka have evolved resistance to DDT. It doesn’t work any more. In fact, that is the reason why they stopped using DDT in Sri Lanka. It wasn’t because of any ban—it was because it stopped being effective.