Ethics question

[questionposter]

This topic asks an interesting ethical question http://www.sciencefo...765#entry674765

Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?

Edited April 30, 2012 by questionposter

[Mrs Zeta]

This topic asks an interesting ethical question http://www.sciencefo...765#entry674765

Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?

 

Your question cannot be answered logically. There is no reasonable way to be sure that there would be no consequences. There are always some consequences to everything.

[zapatos]

This topic asks an interesting ethical question http://www.sciencefo...765#entry674765

Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?

I assume you mean no negative consequences? If so, then yes, do it and save millions of lives.

 

If you meant no consequeces at all, then why bother?

[questionposter]

I guess I should clarify that I mean no "negative" consequences.

 

 

I assume you mean no negative consequences? If so, then yes, do it and save millions of lives.

 

 

Save millions of lives? Well maybe after all this time mosquitoes have been responsible for killing millions of lives (although that's just the bacteria they have in them, which aren't only found in mosquitoes), but even if that were the case, couldn't we save the lives of even more living things by wiping out the human race? Does that mean we should wipe out the human race?

Edited May 1, 2012 by questionposter

[zapatos]

Save millions of lives? Well maybe after all this time mosquitoes have been responsible for killing millions of lives (although that's just the bacteria they have in them, which aren't only found in mosquitoes), but even if that were the case, couldn't we save the lives of even more living things by wiping out the human race? Does that mean we should wipe out the human race?

Yes, millions of lives.

Malaria has been a widely prevalent disease throughout human history – some scientists believe that one in every two people who have ever lived has died of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria

 

Although currently due to a great effort the number of malaria deaths is down to about 655,000 per year. That is over 2% of all deaths woldwide per year.

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/index.html

 

Since malaria is a mosquito-borne infectious disease, I think it is safe to say that eradicating mosquitos will save millions of lives.

 

No I don't think we should wipe out the human race, even if it would save many living things.

[questionposter]

Yes, millions of lives.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria

 

Although currently due to a great effort the number of malaria deaths is down to about 655,000 per year. That is over 2% of all deaths woldwide per year.

http://www.who.int/f...a/en/index.html

 

Since malaria is a mosquito-borne infectious disease, I think it is safe to say that eradicating mosquitos will save millions of lives.

 

No I don't think we should wipe out the human race, even if it would save many living things.

 

Well logically we should instead focus on eliminating malaria, because even if we eliminate mosquitoes, malaria could still have adaptations that allow it to survive in the water or in other animals. In fact, because mosquitoes have already bitten other animals, malaria is present in them and they can spread it with bodily fluid contact and thus killing off mosquitoes would not eliminate malaria.

 

Anyway, we shouldn't we wipe we the human race then? Ethically and objectively, why should mosquitoes deserve to be wiped out but not humans? Or for that matter, why not wipe out every animal and every aggressive plant?

Edited May 1, 2012 by questionposter

[dimreepr]

Well logically we should instead focus on eliminating malaria, because even if we eliminate mosquitoes, malaria could still have adaptations that allow it to survive in the water or in other animals. In fact, because mosquitoes have already bitten other animals, malaria is present in them and they can spread it with bodily fluid contact and thus killing off mosquitoes would not eliminate malaria.

 

Anyway, we shouldn't we wipe we the human race then? Ethically and objectively, why should mosquitoes deserve to be wiped out but not humans? Or for that matter, why not wipe out every animal and every aggressive plant?

 

 

The natural world is so complex and diverse that trying to eradicate one species, even malaria, almost certainly will have consequences, an emergent quality that can’t be predicted. Wiping out humans would certainly help nature re-adjust, in terms of the havoc we continue to visit on the planet. However we are part of the diversity of nature, just one more evolutionary pressure for our fellow creatures. As Cnut the great tired to point out with his attempt at stopping the tides, we might think we have dominion over nature, but as of now we simply don’t. Maybe in future we might, but it’s my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power.

 

 

[questionposter]

The natural world is so complex and diverse that trying to eradicate one species, even malaria, almost certainly will have consequences, an emergent quality that can't be predicted. Wiping out humans would certainly help nature re-adjust, in terms of the havoc we continue to visit on the planet. However we are part of the diversity of nature, just one more evolutionary pressure for our fellow creatures. As Cnut the great tired to point out with his attempt at stopping the tides, we might think we have dominion over nature, but as of now we simply don't. Maybe in future we might, but it's my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power.

 

 

 

The point is not if we can get away with it, that's the separate topic, the point is what we should do if we could.

[dimreepr]

The point is not if we can get away with it, that's the separate topic, the point is what we should do if we could.

 

 

The last sentence of my post address' this point.

[questionposter]

The last sentence of my post address' this point.

 

Ok, but let's say we do get that power, which is what this topic started out with.

[dimreepr]

Ok, but let's say we do get that power, which is what this topic started out with.

 

 

"but it's my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power."

By this I mean I hope the human race will evolve, at least morally, to the point that we realize trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.

Edited May 1, 2012 by dimreepr

[questionposter]

"but it's my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power."

By this I mean I hope the human race will evolve, at least morally, to the point that we realize trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.

 

What if not everyone believes in god? And some studies came out showing that it's likely human brains won't evolve much more.

[dimreepr]

What if not everyone believes in god? And some studies came out showing that it's likely human brains won't evolve much more.

 

 

Why do you need to believe in god, (to play god) to exterminate a species? Our physical brains may not change or evolve but I would like to think our attitudes, towards nature, will.

 

 

[questionposter]

Why do you need to believe in god, (to play god) to exterminate a species? Our physical brains may not change or evolve but I would like to think our attitudes, towards nature, will.

 

 

 

This is about what should ethically and logically happen given a circumstance like this, especially considering there could easily be alien life outside of this solar system, not about what we "hope" to happen.

[dimreepr]

This is about what should ethically and logically happen given a circumstance like this, especially considering there could easily be alien life outside of this solar system, not about what we "hope" to happen.

 

 

If you want the thread to follow the OP more closely, please ask more relevant questions. My first reply contains my thoughts on the subject, I realise the OP asks a specific question “Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?” I couldn’t properly answer the question as it’s based on a false premise (in reality “no consequences” is improbable in the extreme) and I felt I had to point this out because, if the action is truly without consequences then it would render the question moot.

 

 

[Greg H.]

Dr Ian Malcolm's character from Jurassic Park seems to have been given all the lines on this topic in that particular movie. Two quotes that jump right out at me are:

 

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

and

All major changes are like death. You can't see what is on the other side until you get there.

 

Saying that a particular action has no negative consequences is like saying that amputating someone's leg will have no negative consequences. It may be necessary to save their life, but trying to determine the consequence of an action years or decades later is like trying to peer into the future. None of us have eyes that strong.

 

Actions may be necessary, and they are taken on the best information available at the time the decision is made. They can still end up being the wrong thing to do (morally or otherwise).

 

Go peruse the movie Mimic for an example of the unintended consequences of someone's actions for the greater good.

[questionposter]

If you want the thread to follow the OP more closely, please ask more relevant questions. My first reply contains my thoughts on the subject, I realise the OP asks a specific question "Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?" I couldn't properly answer the question as it's based on a false premise (in reality "no consequences" is improbable in the extreme) and I felt I had to point this out because, if the action is truly without consequences then it would render the question moot.

 

 

 

It's not nessecerily based on a false premise. Let's say we brought dinosaurs back for a day, then killed them all. Any negative consequences? I'm sure it's possible to encounter circumstances where wiping out a species would have little to no impact upon the global environment.

[Greg H.]

It's not nessecerily based on a false premise. Let's say we brought dinosaurs back for a day, then killed them all. Any negative consequences? I'm sure it's possible to encounter circumstances where wiping out a species would have little to no impact upon the global environment.

 

If we brought dinosaurs back in a controlled environment for a limited time, and then wiped them out, they would have little to no interaction with the natural environment and the consequences would be commensurate with that interaction. The same principles do not apply to mosquitoes or the malaria they carry. It is, in fact, possible that malaria would evolve into a far more virulent strain in order to find a new way to propagate and far more people wold die per year than if we had just left the situation alone.

 

 

 

[questionposter]

If we brought dinosaurs back in a controlled environment for a limited time, and then wiped them out, they would have little to no interaction with the natural environment and the consequences would be commensurate with that interaction. The same principles do not apply to mosquitoes or the malaria they carry. It is, in fact, possible that malaria would evolve into a far more virulent strain in order to find a new way to propagate and far more people wold die per year than if we had just left the situation alone.

 

What if the mosquitoes seem bad to everyone, because anything that eats them may get infected with malaria if their stomach acid doesn't destroy it fast, and the mosquitoes can transfer it to really any animal, and there seems to be many other bugs to continue the food chain, perhaps enough that if the mosquitoes were gone another species could rise of to take its place but not be so annoying.

[questionposter]

If we brought dinosaurs back in a controlled environment for a limited time, and then wiped them out, they would have little to no interaction with the natural environment and the consequences would be commensurate with that interaction. The same principles do not apply to mosquitoes or the malaria they carry. It is, in fact, possible that malaria would evolve into a far more virulent strain in order to find a new way to propagate and far more people wold die per year than if we had just left the situation alone.

 

What if the mosquitoes seem bad to everyone, because anything that eats them may get infected with malaria if their stomach acid doesn't destroy it fast, and the mosquitoes can transfer it to really any animal, and there seems to be many other bugs to continue the food chain, perhaps enough that if the mosquitoes were gone another species could rise of to take its place but not be so annoying.

This is for a different topic anyway, this thread as about the ethical/logical question, it doesn't matter if it's a 10-20% false premise, it's about analyzing the ethical course of actions the human race takes.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

The logic of the question is inductive, so any possible consequence is an argument to consider. The probability of the consequence is then a continuation of the same argument.

 

We can't deduct because we only know a single, initial condition (the eradication of mosquitoes). We can't abduct because it hasn't happened yet.

 

The idea that "if the mosquitoes were gone another species could rise of to take its place but not be so annoying", is a valid argument, but so therefore is the idea that if mosquitoes were gone another species could rise up to take its place and be twice as bad.

 

I don't think logic is a good place to start the approach to the question to be honest, but rather approach it from chaos theory or something, and then after probable assumptions have been made it then becomes one for ethics.

[dimreepr]

It's not nessecerily based on a false premise. Let's say we brought dinosaurs back for a day, then killed them all. Any negative consequences?

 

Any point?

 

I'm sure it's possible to encounter circumstances where wiping out a species would have little to no impact upon the global environment.

 

You may be right, but without the ability to predict the future it’s impossible to knowing which species that is.

 

 

[questionposter]

Any point?

 

[/font][/size]

 

You may be right, but without the ability to predict the future it's impossible to knowing which species that is.

 

 

 

Again, I don't understand how people don't get this, but this thread isn't about how likely it is, it's about the ethical course of action.

[dimreepr]

Again, I don't understand how people don't get this, but this thread isn't about how likely it is, it's about the ethical course of action.

 

 

I do get this and have, to my mind, answered the OP in post #7 all subsequent posts on my part have been directly answering your statements or questions. As you are the originator of this thread I didn’t feel I was moving the thread off topic by answering you. In post #11 I directly answer both your post #10 and the OP with this statement “trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.” At this point I think a re-phrasing of the OP may be in order, if you want the discussion to continue.

 

 

[questionposter]

I do get this and have, to my mind, answered the OP in post #7 all subsequent posts on my part have been directly answering your statements or questions. As you are the originator of this thread I didn't feel I was moving the thread off topic by answering you. In post #11 I directly answer both your post #10 and the OP with this statement "trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong." At this point I think a re-phrasing of the OP may be in order, if you want the discussion to continue.

 

 

 

Ok, but how do you logically come to the conclusion it is ethically wrong?