Google to relese 20 million sterile mosquitos

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
What if the female Mosquitos are bangin more than one guy ? Kinda throws that one out the window no ? Is there a female mosquito honour code or something. With that life span I think they'd be out to bang anything with wings

Yeah, all for naught?

a reply to: InTheLight

True..being sterile though, it's a safer bet than some strategy's, and "bet" is the keyword.

I think its a dumb idea 💡 a reply to: InTheLight

originally posted by: InTheLight

Per chance?

We're far afield of the conversation but...

Perchance

Definition of perchance : perhaps, possibly

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
I think its a dumb idea 💡 a reply to: InTheLight

Of course you do.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: InTheLight

True..being sterile though, it's a safer bet than some strategy's, and "bet" is the keyword.

Wish us all good luck.

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
What if the female Mosquitos are bangin more than one guy ? Kinda throws that one out the window no ? Is there a female mosquito honour code or something. With that life span I think they'd be out to bang anything with wings

True. It's a matter of statistics. I don't want to get lambasted for linking a wiki page, but I'd recommend you check out r naught.

Basic Reproduction Number

When you decrease the r value to less than 1, the contagion will die out. Same concept applies. It doesn't have to work in all cases. It has to work in more cases than it doesn't.

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
What if the female Mosquitos are bangin more than one guy ? Kinda throws that one out the window no ? Is there a female mosquito honour code or something. With that life span I think they'd be out to bang anything with wings

True. It's a matter of statistics. I don't want to get lambasted for linking a wiki page, but I'd recommend you check out r naught.

Basic Reproduction Number

When you decrease the r value to less than 1, the contagion will die out. Same concept applies. It doesn't have to work in all cases. It has to work in more cases than it doesn't.

How do you know that without knowing the population numbers and variances?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
What if the female Mosquitos are bangin more than one guy ? Kinda throws that one out the window no ? Is there a female mosquito honour code or something. With that life span I think they'd be out to bang anything with wings

True. It's a matter of statistics. I don't want to get lambasted for linking a wiki page, but I'd recommend you check out r naught.

Basic Reproduction Number

When you decrease the r value to less than 1, the contagion will die out. Same concept applies. It doesn't have to work in all cases. It has to work in more cases than it doesn't.

How do you know that without knowing the population numbers and variances?

I need a clap emoji.

Because [clap] I'm [clap] Not [Clap] Involved [Clap] In The Research.

I can assure you that those involved in this have the estimated population numbers, variances and whatever else you'd like to discuss with them.

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: CuriousPaddy
What if the female Mosquitos are bangin more than one guy ? Kinda throws that one out the window no ? Is there a female mosquito honour code or something. With that life span I think they'd be out to bang anything with wings

True. It's a matter of statistics. I don't want to get lambasted for linking a wiki page, but I'd recommend you check out r naught.

Basic Reproduction Number

When you decrease the r value to less than 1, the contagion will die out. Same concept applies. It doesn't have to work in all cases. It has to work in more cases than it doesn't.

How do you know that without knowing the population numbers and variances?

I need a clap emoji.

Because [clap] I'm [clap] Not [Clap] Involved [Clap] In The Research.

I can assure you that those involved in this have the estimated population numbers, variances and whatever else you'd like to discuss with them.

Who can prove that? Also, do they have forecasted stats or assumptions as to the environmental results....yes, assumptions all the way.

originally posted by: InTheLight

Who can prove that? Also, do they have forecasted stats or assumptions as to the environmental results....yes, assumptions all the way.

I told you who can prove it. Go reach out to those performing the research. Let me know what you find out.

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: InTheLight

Who can prove that? Also, do they have forecasted stats or assumptions as to the environmental results....yes, assumptions all the way.

I told you who can prove it. Go reach out to those performing the research. Let me know what you find out.

I've been reading many studies and research on animals and all are assumptions in regarding to us humans.

They wiped out billions of mosquitoes in the past using DDT. It had an impact but it wasn't permanent by any means and soon, things returned to normal.

Here do a lot of damage to animals and the human race.

Here's excerpts from an article from Nature dot com, www.nature.com...

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."

If they focused on only the human attacking mosquitoes, that would leave plenty of species for other purposes that mosquitoes provide such as food and pollination etc. I hate them so I would be happy to see a couple hundred species of mosquito disappear.

a reply to: StoutBroux

And they repeat the stupid science with viruses.

originally posted by: StoutBroux
They wiped out billions of mosquitoes in the past using DDT. It had an impact but it wasn't permanent by any means and soon, things returned to normal.

Here do a lot of damage to animals and the human race.

Here's excerpts from an article from Nature dot com, www.nature.com...

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."

If they focused on only the human attacking mosquitoes, that would leave plenty of species for other purposes that mosquitoes provide such as food and pollination etc. I hate them so I would be happy to see a couple hundred species of mosquito disappear.

Yes, let's move beyond the dumping of toxic poisons into the atmosphere and do it a better way!

Oh, and that might help the bee population too as a side effect. Wouldn't that be grand.

a reply to: InTheLight

I'm curious here. On most environmental issues the advocates use scientists as the main tool in their arsenal, because they are never wrong and what they say is gospel. You are taking the opposite approach saying basically that science can't be trusted when it comes to the environment. Can both be true at the same time?

I'm not saying that science is never wrong, or that scientists don't misrepresent things to get funding. They do when politics is involved and they have to throw out their ethics to get the money they need to justify their work. I don't see it in this case.

Or are you just playing the devils advocate here?

originally posted by: Ineilio

originally posted by: StoutBroux
They wiped out billions of mosquitoes in the past using DDT. It had an impact but it wasn't permanent by any means and soon, things returned to normal.

Here do a lot of damage to animals and the human race.

Here's excerpts from an article from Nature dot com, www.nature.com...

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."

If they focused on only the human attacking mosquitoes, that would leave plenty of species for other purposes that mosquitoes provide such as food and pollination etc. I hate them so I would be happy to see a couple hundred species of mosquito disappear.

Yes, let's move beyond the dumping of toxic poisons into the atmosphere and do it a better way!

Oh, and that might help the bee population too as a side effect. Wouldn't that be grand.

This virus in it's concentration seems to me (in a purely gut feeling way) so wrong.

Google? Why is Google playing around with mosquitoes? They should stick to managing their search engine monopoly and stop trying to save the world.

originally posted by: Wookiep
Google? Why is Google playing around with mosquitoes? They should stick to managing their search engine monopoly and stop trying to save the world.

Billionaires playing games?

originally posted by: InTheLight

a reply to: StoutBroux

And they repeat the stupid science with viruses.

Again, what virus?

Wolbachia is not a virus?