What [censored] thought it was a good idea to kill organisms.

part of their job is eating other insects, so,

tiny robots that eat other tiny robots?

Where does it stop? :shrug:

I and many people hate spiders. In some parts of the world spiders are responsible for human suffering, like the brown recluse and the black widow. As for other insects, I learned a real hatred of cockroaches when I lived in Bermuda only a few years ago. So if I were to choose to eradicate any insects it would be those. Wow, a life without spiders would be heaven. But....really where does it stop and what gives humanity the right to decide what species should live and what should die.

Besides, those mosquitoes are a major food source for the family of albino white bats living in the rafters on my porch. Gorgeous creatures, those bats, they look like white ghosts as they flit by at night.

Save the bees!

I voted for "what is planned extinction" because I never herd of it before until now.

What dike thought it was a good idea to create organisms who only exist to kill other organisms?

God.

I dunno.

I laughed really hard at this and now my boss is looking at me funny.

Im more into population control of animals that [censored] up ranchers land. but thats just me.

Population control.

Actually, male mosquitos pollinate some species of plants. only the females svck blood(insert jokes here). The cacao plant in the iis often open pollinated by gnats.


I'm against planned extintion, so many organism webs are interconnected.

No. That is equally wrong. The wolves of Yellowstone National Park are damned near extinct because of that. And when you think about it, they were on that land before we were. We are the intruders. And they only go after fenced-in farm animals when other resources are low, so if we kept the prey populations in stock they would likely never bother with the cattle anyways. Or, I dunno, reinstate the watch dog. Put some of them pooches we BRED for work BACK to WORK.


Exactly. Diseases keep populations from reaching the carrying capacity of their environment. Particularly true of viruses, who only infect and do nothing else, since it is how they reproduce. However, in the case of bacteria, they are actually not maliciously seeking you out to destroy you. In most cases, they are merely trying to survive in their environment (you) which sometimes causes some nasty side effects for you. Myxococcus Xanthus however actually hunts down cells... so that's a different matter.

But for most bacteria they are typically natural bodily flora that thrive in/on your body, and only cause disease because of an immune system 'hiccup' that causes you to react to their biological products, and hence get sick. A virus' ultimate goal is to blow up that cell and make more of itself. A bacterium's ultimate goal is simply to survive, and that may/may not require the death of other cells.

Therefore, eradicating viruses would be beneficial, but not bacteria. Our normal body flora like E. coli and S. aureus actually help stave off infections through resource competition. But regardless, they are key to maintaining a population ceiling, and our fight against them reveals the consequences of their removal. Note how we are running out of space.

Every organism has its own niche, no matter how small, vile, or subtle it may be. Removing even a single celled organism could have repercussions on an ecologically deadly scale.

no, the wolves werent. the single celled organism was.


And when we have an overpopulation of wild pigs, a pest, we kill them and eat them so they dont go to waste.

Kill anything that doesn't walk on two/four legs or live unda da sea.

I will support it with my own life if they would kill all life on this miserable planet.

Can't say I support.

For example, take one thing out (that seems rather horrible), but then something new comes (that is more horrible), it [censored]s up the system. It's manipulation. It may even be a gret risk to take, as pointed out in my "highly accurate" example. But you probably get the idea.

We "manipulated" nature ever since the start of artificial selection a few thousand years ago or more, furthermore in genetic modification, engineering, and testing concerning both animals and plants. If it was really this bad, certainly our ecosystem would be going haywire. Certainly humans have the potential to cause mischief, but doing so would indirectly cause harm to our own species, by the logic of such an intricate way life is intertwined so it would be evident in these regards. People have become quite adept at overstating disasters. We've long decided which species is going extinct and truthfully any dominant species would have such a similar method of selection.

there is a common misconception that every species is intrinsically intertwined with the ecosystem and the if it ceases to exist the ecosystem is somehow "messed up". that is complete [censored] and contrary to how evolution works. organisms adapt to their environment not the other way around. there are some symbiotic organisms that depend exclusively on each other but that is a result of species being in contact with one another for lots time as in hundreds of thousands or millions of years. its also a stupid survival mechanism and at some point or another one of them will die off and the other one will adapt or also die off. thats how the system works.

over 99% of life that has existed on earth is now extinct. what we see today is a tiny portion of what has existed and vanished over the earths long history. killing some virus or bacteria isnt going to do anything. someone did make a good point about mosquitoes but they should still get rid of them in areas with malaria. animals that feed on them can find something else to eat or go hungry themselves.

I put maybe because I like that they are getting rid of certain diseases and everything, but you never know when someone accidentally makes a bacteria extinct that could have been a very important bacteria for some reason.

Humans always go to far sometimes. :wink_smile: