As was once said "Nature Abhors a Vacuum" and as a result it will seek to fill that void. Was searching through wiki to identify a bird I took a picture of and started looking through files on extinction. One thing I came across was so called "Planned Extinction" of organisms which include bacteria/virus as well as harmful creatures like Mosquitoes. One mentioned example was Small Pox which has been confirmed as being eradicated and samples are retained for study at several facilities.

Do you agree with planned extinction or is this a form of just mass slaughter? *Mostly referring to killing the Mosquitoes not viruses/bacteria that are harmful to humans/animals*

*Edit*

See some voted for the "What Is Planned Extinction" vote either as a joke or they may not really know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#Planned_extinction which essentially breaks it down giving some references to materials that give a better understanding of it.

As for myself i'm really up in the air as far as Planned Extinction goes because it's hard to determine the full impact of the loss of a creature upon the world. As noted nature abhors a vacuum so we may get something even nastier which is probably why old diseases have died out/gone extinct while we get nastier super bugs like MRSA and drug resistant TB.

Aren't mosquitoes harmful to humans?

I hate mosquitoes with all my heart, and I would take great pleasure if they were all eradicated.

If we could develop adorable robots to do all the jobs insects, arachnids and crustaceans do then nuke the [censored] out of all the insects, archnids and crustaceans, that would be fine.

In some places mosquitoes carry some extremely damaging diseases so I can understand the push to control them but this ignores two things:

1. Mosquitoes are an extremely important food for a large number of animals.

2. Most means of removing mosquitoes affect a wide range of unproblematic animals - in Africa DDT is frequently used to control malaria (and this insecticide is very harmful to other animals) and even the 'less damaging' insecticides used in the US and elsewhere tend to wipe out many unintended animals. Attempts to control West Nile Virus, which affects a handful of humans a year, have decimated helpful insects, shellfish, and negatively affected the animals that eat them.

I do not have a problem with trying to remove a specific virus or bacterium like smallpox or polio, but I don't support the purposeful extinction of more complex lifeforms.

No, this is a horrible idea. Everything has a purpose and I don't think any creature should be eradicated because we don't like it. As for diseases, well, when we get rid of one there is always another that pops up in its place so it doesn't really matter.

It would be my pleasure to slaughter all geese and pigeons near my personal habitat and beyond.

Every animal plays a role in an ecosystem, removing one could be harmful to the rest.

Diseases on the other hand, I think should be eradicated.

And there goes the food chain for X Which affects animal Z which affects Animal N so forth until it effects us.

No, everything has it's place on earth...

Except spiders, they're all evil, poisonous, spiteful, scary, hateful, dirty, large, horrible little bastards. All shall be eradicated.

A lot of fictional apocalypse stories start with a plan that mankind thought would benefit everyone.

I have a decent fear of them, but any organism that's willing to capture bees, mosquitoes and annoying flies in a web is a friend of mine.

Can't stand mice, roaches, flies, or rats.

I agree with point #1, they are a vital part of many food chains so eradicating them would cause widespread and uncontrolled changes in many ecosystems which could in turn lead to mass extinctions of several other species (a domino effect).

For point #2, while there are many dangerous pesticides out there, DDT is not one of them. The only known effect of DDT on non-insect species is that high doses (much higher than would ever occur during normal use of the chemical) have been linked to a thinning of egg shells in predator birds. This thinning could contribute to up to a 1% decline in predatory bird birth rates. Most commonly known information regarding DDT is false and is the result of reactionaries who are opposed to any human interference in our own ecosystem. In fact, DDT is less harmful than most pesticides that are used on a daily basis here in the US, but reactionary legislation still prevents a safe chemical like DDT from being used.

Well, we like to play the role of "preserving" species, even if their compatibility with today's environment is non-existent. I suppose if we use this logic, why not planning to cause extinction for some too? Does keeping species' around that likely wouldn't survive playing into the ecosystem too? Surely it's with the same little regard too. At very least those coping with purposely planning extinctions would be confronting the issue honestly and not from a cloud nine perspective.

I voted yes.

I'm for it. And apparently so is the human race. I'm still waiting for the day when I can watch mushrooms rising on the horizon.

They are all gods creatures and should not be exterminated in this vile horrid way.

With harmful viruses, like HIV or something like that I would support the eradication, but for bugs, no because we don't fully understand what would happen to the environment.

Edit: Does anyone know what would happen if roaches or rats were extinct? Do they play an important part in any ecosystems?

I dunno. I don't think anyone would miss ticks and other non-food parasites. I don't think anything eats ticks. Mosquitoes, on the other hand, are food for a variety of nice critters, like bats and dragonflies.

I think the latest plan for mosquitoes is to make some GM ones that resist getting infected by malaria, and then release the GM ones into the wild and eventually the entire population will be GM.

It's important to separate the vector from the disease-causing organism/virus/bacteria.

Hawaii didn't have mosquitoes until Capt. Cook dumped his bilge water in a freshwater inlet on Oahu (the silly Pom). The thought of a tropical paradise with no bloodsvcking mosquitoes sounds wonderful.

This is how I feel. We've already got trouble with the environment adapting to our rapid industrialization and I don't think we need to go adding anymore problems to the ecology by taking out various lifeforms. Even as annoying as mosquitoes and spiders and other insects are, they play a large role in the environment. Remove insects and many plants lose their means of fertilization, birds and other animals loses their source of food, and that then causes us to lose our food source. An extreme example but that's what happens when we mess with nature.

The problem with that is that mosquitoes are involved in pollinating process,alot of harmful stuff is actually part of teh ecosystem, you cant jsut go around killing the stuff you dont like, beause ti si part of the ecosystem.

Although disease and viruses are different case.

Though I hate many things in nature and would like to see them gone, nature knows what its doing, so don't meddle.

Do it.

I voted yes. But if someone gives me the pro-flesh-eating-bacteria argument, I might change my answer. Why keep something around that does nothing beneficial for any living being?

People already have meddled, so some of it has to be kept under control. Killer bees were made from someone who crossed honey bees with african bees, and they escaped and became a huge problem. They should be eradicated. Other than maybe a few types of species, it's mostly diseases that aren't needed, and maybe some types of parasites.