Forums > Social Discussion > Morality of eradicating harmful species.
Login/Join to ParticipateScientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I've been studying parasites for the last three months now and I was wondering what peoples opinions were on the eradication of an entire species if it causes human or even animal hardship. There are loads of different factors in considering the morality. Is it acceptable to eradicate plasmodium, the parasite that causes malaria? It's only a single cell and doesn't even count as an animal so most people wouln't care. But would it be alright to wipe out it's vector, the mosquito (actually since sexual reproduction of the plasmodium occurs in the mosquito, humans are the vector to mosquitos in a strictly technical sense
) What about wiping out a mammal species if it carried a disease or just a local population, like the growing momentum for a Badger cull in parts of Britain.
Is the eradication of a species wrong in general? How does it compare to the death of an individual? If a species could be eradicated without harming any of its members (by sterilisation or whatever) would it still be wrong? It's a lot of questions but since I may well be involved in this line of work in the future (although probably not the badger killing
) I really want to know how it's percieved.
I've been studying parasites for the last three months now and I was wondering what peoples opinions were on the eradication of an entire species if it causes human or even animal hardship. There are loads of different factors in considering the morality. Is it acceptable to eradicate plasmodium, the parasite that causes malaria? It's only a single cell and doesn't even count as an animal so most people wouln't care. But would it be alright to wipe out it's vector, the mosquito (actually since sexual reproduction of the plasmodium occurs in the mosquito, humans are the vector to mosquitos in a strictly technical sense
) What about wiping out a mammal species if it carried a disease or just a local population, like the growing momentum for a Badger cull in parts of Britain.Is the eradication of a species wrong in general? How does it compare to the death of an individual? If a species could be eradicated without harming any of its members (by sterilisation or whatever) would it still be wrong? It's a lot of questions but since I may well be involved in this line of work in the future (although probably not the badger killing
) I really want to know how it's percieved.According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Peer Review!!!!!!!!!
Any fool can put anything online. For evidence to considered as in a scientific discussion it needs to be peer reviewed. I don't give a crap what the German court system says about anything. I don't care what someone says on their website. Quote a peer reviewed journal. This website you keep quoteing from is talking about an outdated mode of isolation as if it were the only methd that existed. That just isn't true.
winning, ego-battles..?
Grow-up. You've been repeatedly wrong on a large number of topics. This is a discussion, not a game.
Peer Review!!!!!!!!!
Any fool can put anything online. For evidence to considered as in a scientific discussion it needs to be peer reviewed. I don't give a crap what the German court system says about anything. I don't care what someone says on their website. Quote a peer reviewed journal. This website you keep quoteing from is talking about an outdated mode of isolation as if it were the only methd that existed. That just isn't true.
winning, ego-battles..?
Grow-up. You've been repeatedly wrong on a large number of topics. This is a discussion, not a game. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
*ahem*
how about you give each other a hug and come back to parasites, and eradicating them, not viruses
*ahem*
how about you give each other a hug and come back to parasites, and eradicating them, not viruses
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,666 posts
Location: Preston, United Kingdom
Posted:
Bah I hate that argument. Im not distructive, ive never leveld a rain forrest or mined oil, our governments and lifestyle is distructive. Not us as a spiecies since our natural abiltys are not couseing problems, its our man made ones that have been doing that. We wouldnt be the 'most distructive species' if we were still living in wooden huts hunting rabits for food on a daily basis.
The most disctructive spiecies are viruses in my opinion, because there exsistance and reproduction only ever bring about one result. For a virus to reproduce (and in most cases survive) it must first of all infact a host. Secondly to reproduce a virus needs to infect a living cell, and in the process it distroys it.
You can argue we have to eat living things to survuve and reproduce, but that isnt our sole purpose in life, where as a virus will only ever do that. We dont we have evolved and are conciouse and have our own motivations wich are not exclusivly to serve our own needs. A virus exsists for one purpose, to reproduce and in the process it kills. It might not be 'its fault' but thats what it does.
Written by: Glåss
Have you read "Xenocide"? of the Enders game series.
Its about this subject.
Surely the most distructive species is the one reading this thread.
Bah I hate that argument. Im not distructive, ive never leveld a rain forrest or mined oil, our governments and lifestyle is distructive. Not us as a spiecies since our natural abiltys are not couseing problems, its our man made ones that have been doing that. We wouldnt be the 'most distructive species' if we were still living in wooden huts hunting rabits for food on a daily basis.
The most disctructive spiecies are viruses in my opinion, because there exsistance and reproduction only ever bring about one result. For a virus to reproduce (and in most cases survive) it must first of all infact a host. Secondly to reproduce a virus needs to infect a living cell, and in the process it distroys it.
You can argue we have to eat living things to survuve and reproduce, but that isnt our sole purpose in life, where as a virus will only ever do that. We dont we have evolved and are conciouse and have our own motivations wich are not exclusivly to serve our own needs. A virus exsists for one purpose, to reproduce and in the process it kills. It might not be 'its fault' but thats what it does.
Chief adviser to the Pharaoh, in one very snazzy mutli-coloured coat
'Time goes by so slowly for those who wait...' - Whatever Happend To Baby Madonna?
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Please!
This thread started off interesting but the last few posts are really going off topic.
If you want to talk about myths, lies, the Scientific Method or, in fact, anything at all other than "The Morality of eradicating harmful species." please start a new thread, or better still, search for a thread, because this has all been talked about before in some way or other.
Please!
This thread started off interesting but the last few posts are really going off topic.
If you want to talk about myths, lies, the Scientific Method or, in fact, anything at all other than "The Morality of eradicating harmful species." please start a new thread, or better still, search for a thread, because this has all been talked about before in some way or other.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
The false belief that HIV does not exist cannot go unchallenged. The lack of substance from FireTom's posts on the subject speaks for itself though, so perhaps it's not neccasery for me to reply to them
.
The false belief that HIV does not exist cannot go unchallenged. The lack of substance from FireTom's posts on the subject speaks for itself though, so perhaps it's not neccasery for me to reply to them
. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
Muddy fingernails
505 posts
Location: Way oop norf, Scotland (UK)
Muddy fingernails
505 posts
Location: Way oop norf, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
*In a state of utter amazement that anyone can possibly claim the HIV virus doesn't exist, but there you go*
Parasites. Hmm. Difficult one. As far as the malaria parasite is concerned, there has been, and still is, large amounts of research ongoing. It is one of the few medical problems of developing countries which actually gets funding. Should we eradicate it? I think that a) if it is possible, and b) if there is concrete evidence that eradicating it won't cause environmental upset, then yes, we should. The measures used however should be ecologically sound.
I have had friends who have suffered malaria. It is horrible, and it doesn't go away but can recur at any time. However I suspect that we will never fully eradicate malaria, merely control it. On a slight side note, did you know that it crops up every so often in the marshes around Chester? Infrequently, but it happens!
We now have knowledge and technology that we have never had in the past, and both are constantly growing. Why shouldn't this be used for the benefit of all humankind? With the proviso that any changes made are not detrimental to the environment or any other species.
What about Leishmaniasis? Less well known as mainly tropical (although cases of visceral leishmaniasis have appeared among IV drug users in southern europe), but a very unpleasant disease also caused by a parasite, in this case a protozoa. Possibly it's appearance in Europe is the reason for an increase in research recently.
Hmm, less well reasoned than I had joped for, but I seem to have my Christmas head on a bit early this year.
*In a state of utter amazement that anyone can possibly claim the HIV virus doesn't exist, but there you go*
Parasites. Hmm. Difficult one. As far as the malaria parasite is concerned, there has been, and still is, large amounts of research ongoing. It is one of the few medical problems of developing countries which actually gets funding. Should we eradicate it? I think that a) if it is possible, and b) if there is concrete evidence that eradicating it won't cause environmental upset, then yes, we should. The measures used however should be ecologically sound.
I have had friends who have suffered malaria. It is horrible, and it doesn't go away but can recur at any time. However I suspect that we will never fully eradicate malaria, merely control it. On a slight side note, did you know that it crops up every so often in the marshes around Chester? Infrequently, but it happens!
We now have knowledge and technology that we have never had in the past, and both are constantly growing. Why shouldn't this be used for the benefit of all humankind? With the proviso that any changes made are not detrimental to the environment or any other species.
What about Leishmaniasis? Less well known as mainly tropical (although cases of visceral leishmaniasis have appeared among IV drug users in southern europe), but a very unpleasant disease also caused by a parasite, in this case a protozoa. Possibly it's appearance in Europe is the reason for an increase in research recently.
Hmm, less well reasoned than I had joped for, but I seem to have my Christmas head on a bit early this year.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
KITTENS!!!!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Maybe an issue is also WHY to eradicate a "species" - if you take viruses into this nomen... the very least justification I might personally take into account is humankind defending itself - as this is a natural desire...
So if you're talking about the malaria virus - I may even give you that one, but as sethis has correctly put it already, we may not fully understand the complexity of this planet at this point. mankind has proven to be very ignorant it the past and present.
For sure I am not supporting in any way the extinction of a species in the interest of PROFIT...
Killing rabbits in australia (as it would not kill the entire species) may correct the mistakes settlers have made in the past and cause the "dead heart" to come back a little.
All in all to me it's a very borderline topic and i'm yet not fully clear upon it - I admit - as ("killing" and) "eradicating" is a very drastic measure in itself -unfortunately the malaria, or other viruses cannot be talked and convinced into reason.
And jeff - even if you consider me wrong on many topics (I may well be, because I'm far from perfection and don't consider me even halfway there) - I'd like to discontinue this tit-for-tat and offer you
and my apology if I might have hurt your emotions or intellect - please, have patience with me - I'm still learning 
one is depending strongly on the information fed into the bionic pc - the mere fact that HIV has NOT been isolated yet (as stated in the above websites, articles and ruled upon by a german high court - unopposed) did in fact amaze me myself and I was wondering how this can be? If you feed me with different informatinos I might or might not swallow them and digest. all that I was dispensing was an alternate (in this case my present) view and this is also what I think a discussion is about - no? I was just - amazed by the level of aggressiveness that I faced from your side.
Maybe an issue is also WHY to eradicate a "species" - if you take viruses into this nomen... the very least justification I might personally take into account is humankind defending itself - as this is a natural desire...
So if you're talking about the malaria virus - I may even give you that one, but as sethis has correctly put it already, we may not fully understand the complexity of this planet at this point. mankind has proven to be very ignorant it the past and present.
For sure I am not supporting in any way the extinction of a species in the interest of PROFIT...
Killing rabbits in australia (as it would not kill the entire species) may correct the mistakes settlers have made in the past and cause the "dead heart" to come back a little.
All in all to me it's a very borderline topic and i'm yet not fully clear upon it - I admit - as ("killing" and) "eradicating" is a very drastic measure in itself -unfortunately the malaria, or other viruses cannot be talked and convinced into reason.
And jeff - even if you consider me wrong on many topics (I may well be, because I'm far from perfection and don't consider me even halfway there) - I'd like to discontinue this tit-for-tat and offer you
and my apology if I might have hurt your emotions or intellect - please, have patience with me - I'm still learning one is depending strongly on the information fed into the bionic pc - the mere fact that HIV has NOT been isolated yet (as stated in the above websites, articles and ruled upon by a german high court - unopposed) did in fact amaze me myself and I was wondering how this can be? If you feed me with different informatinos I might or might not swallow them and digest. all that I was dispensing was an alternate (in this case my present) view and this is also what I think a discussion is about - no? I was just - amazed by the level of aggressiveness that I faced from your side. the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com