r/technology • u/lurker_bee • 23h ago

Biotechnology Burkina Faso says no to Bill Gates’ plan of creating modified species of mosquitoes

https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/burkina-faso-says-no-to-bill-gates-plan-of-creating-modified-species-of-mosquitoes/xyk7xm8
9.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

97

u/VvvlvvV 21h ago

  1. Genetic modification of mosquitos has been proven to be effective at suppressing malaria in several attempts already. 

  2. Genetically modified mosquitos are the fastest and most accessible way for Burkina Faso to reduce the malaria burden, compared to other options.

  3. Burkina Faso is accepting a large loss of life and quality of life due to wanting to handle malaria domestically. 

The country can do what it chooses, but their are clear costs to this decision. The above is what is true according to the science and evidence.  Burkina Faso can work towards local solutions, great. I'm thinking about how many people will die because of a lack of trust.

-9

u/funone1990 18h ago

"Proven effective" is not the same as "proven safe and free of downstream consequences." But sure, go ahead. Not like scientific hubris has ever resulted in environmental catastrophe before... 🙄

17

u/Obscure_Occultist 17h ago

Let's go take a look at the alternatives of using GMO mosquitos.

Mass insecticide campaigns - It will certainly kill the mosquitos but will poison just about everything else, including humans. Depending on the insecticide used, you'll either get mild chemical contamination, causing adverse birth defects in local wild life and human populations or straight up collapse of the local biodiversity and animals that feed on mosquitos get poisoned and subsequently die, with animals that feed on those animals subsequently getting poisoned as well.

Draining wetlands - straight up environmental destruction of the local environment that isn't even garaunteed to stop the spread of mosquitos.

Mosquito nets - are stop gap solution that doesn't actually do anything about the mosquito problem. Only protects certain populations that possesses the nets, while also not combating the spread of disease. Its also completely dependent on the effectiveness of the nets itself.

Genuinely speaking, once you consider the alternative to GMO mosquitos, are there any alternatives you would rather go with?

-3

u/funone1990 15h ago

If the consequences of the solution end up being worse than the problem you are trying to solve, it would be better to do nothing at all.

4

u/Obscure_Occultist 15h ago

That logic is counterproductive, and you know it. All that line of thinking does is promote stagnation at best and garauntees ruination at worst.

Doing nothing at all in this situation garauntees thousands of deaths. People will die if we follow your logic. It's genuinely baffling you would even think about an idea like this.

-2

u/funone1990 14h ago

Sorry but it's not. There are solutions where low probability but high impact adverse events make it not worth it. Would you get on a plane that had a 1% chance of crashing? Of course not. Meddling in complex ecosystems with rapid genetic engineering carries the same kind of risk.

3

u/Obscure_Occultist 14h ago

My guy, all planes have a non-zero chance of crashing. Same with all vehicles, yet we continue to utilize them because that risk is worth the usage.

Additionally, in this case, the adverse effects are both known and measured. You're relying on fear of improbable and unknown concerns to dictate action. Do you know how insane that is? In theory, cooking your food could lead to your house burning down? Does that mean people should not cook their own food? No, cause thats insane. Same logic applies here because you shouldn't let theoretical probabilities get in the way of practical applications. If humanity was governed by the same backwards thinking, we wouldn't have made it out of the stone age.

1

u/funone1990 13h ago

GMO engineering is way more likely to go wrong, and in a far more catastrophic way than you are to crash your car.

1

u/Obscure_Occultist 13h ago edited 13h ago

My guy, you just used a plane crashing as part of your analogy. You don't get to use the "dangers of everyday actions are inconsequential" line when you literally cited the risk of yet another everyday activity as to why you shouldn't do it.

Okay fine, let's play your game. Can you describe these risks? We've been using GMO mosquitos for nearly a decade at this point. Can you point to instances where using this technology to limit the mosquito population has caused "catastrophic" consequences?

1

u/funone1990 12h ago

That's not what I said at all. I said: IF a plane had a one percent chance of crashing, you wouldn't get on it.

Luckily they don't! 1% is an insanely high risk when the impact would be sudden death. Nobody would fly if the risk was anywhere near that high.

In this analogy, GMO engineering is the plane. My position is it's going to be fine in 99/100 scenarios. But when it goes wrong it has the potential to be catastrophic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Phenomenomix 13h ago

More likely to go wrong than what?

9

u/VvvlvvV 18h ago

This is fear-mongering over things you don't understand. This is not DDT.

-4

u/funone1990 17h ago

I challenge you to prove there are no downstream consequences without making an appeal to authority.

9

u/VvvlvvV 16h ago

I didn't say there no downstream consequences. I'm saying the downstream consequences we know about with this method are incredibly low and we have evidence going back a decade. 

I understand the science behind the genetics involved. Its safe. The genes that spread make mosquitos resistant to malaria. That only, solely stops the spread of malaria. That is the main mechanism. Mosquitos in nature already have these genes. Scientists are working to increase that number. Scientists are mass breeding these resistant mosquitos then releasing them. 

No one is talking about killing all the mosquitos in relation to gene edited mosquitos. Its literally impossible and is used to cull mosquito populations - not eliminate them. 

-4

u/funone1990 15h ago

"we know about" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

5

u/VvvlvvV 14h ago

There is no amount of evidence that would be acceptable to people who act like you. This is what I meant by the fear mongering. 

-1

u/funone1990 13h ago

There is, but you don't have it. So instead of applying the precautionary principle, you've just decided to be dangerously ignorant about the risks.

2

u/VvvlvvV 12h ago edited 26m ago

I don't believe you. Prove it. Tell me exactly what evidence would convince you. 

You are dangerously ignorant about the risks. You clearly don't understand them and would prefer inaction and helplessness rather than informed risks. 

This whole thing is puerile. I presented information and evidence and was met with a brick wall of learned helplessness. 

3

u/Tylendal 15h ago

That is the rhetorical equivalent of a kid playing make-believe claiming to have an everything-proof invincibility shield.

You need to describe exactly which sort of potential downstream consequences you're concerned about, and by what mechanism you think they will come about. Otherwise you're just bragging of your ignorance on the subject and insisting it gives you validity.

You can't prove a negative.

-2

u/funone1990 14h ago

"You can't prove a negative."

Yeah dude, that's exactly why we shouldn't be meddling in complex ecosystems. We can't model what will happen on anything but a hyper-local and theoretical scale.

It will be fine in 99% of scenarios. Until it's not.

4

u/Tylendal 14h ago

"You can't prove a negative."

Yeah dude, that's exactly why we shouldn't be...

...."literally doing anything, ever" by your logic.

Better never take another step again, since there's a non-zero chance you might stumble and break your leg. Can't know 100%, so don't take that risk. /s

1

u/funone1990 13h ago

The consequences of most everyday risky activities are not even close to the magnitude of damage that can be done with haughty GMO engineering.

EVERYTHING in life involves risk. You make decisions based not just on probability, but on what the impact of the event would be. That's the precautionary principle.

1

u/Tylendal 13h ago

Okay. What is the specific impact that you're concerned about, and what mechanism would that come about by?

1

u/funone1990 12h ago

The problem is that GMOs have the potential to self-propogate, even across the globe. This has actually already happened with GMO mosquito populations that were designed not to propagate their genes but did anyway.

The risks are the same as any other invasive species (already pretty bad), but potentially much worse because they are not native or naturally adapted to anywhere. Little changes in ecosystems can have really serious consequences for food supplies.

→ More replies (0)