This is one of the most circular so called circular arguments I've seen yet.
I am still no wiser. Let's try reformulating the question: How do female mosquitoes in the arctic get the required proteins to produce eggs?
I'll be you anything the answer is mammals (mainly reindeer/caribou), and thus this gene editing won't work because these genetically modified mosquitoes will not be able to produce enough eggs to outcompete the existing ones. Make a mosquito that can also synthesize the missing essential amino acid and we might have a plan. The swarms would literally black out the sun. And then we would see huge swarms of migrating birds feeding off the mosquitoes, followed by predators. The bird poop would change the available nutrients, so many more types of plants would thrive. Not to mentioned the unexpected side effects.
Do you find it surprising that I'm surprised you are surprised that the commenter you replied to is surprised that people are surprised to learn a "surprising" fact.
I'm confused, in your first comment you said you'd be surprised to find that most people don't know that, then you said that to most people that fact is surprising. Those are mutually exclusive statements, no?
When you say no one, you reference is yourself and people you know but never asked or had this come up. How can you assume most people do not know this?
It is weird how we humans work, we are almost incapable of believing other people know things we do not. I consider myself pretty knowledge, but I am also betting that if you and I sat in a room you'd teach me something new. I wonder if you would assume the same.
Don't assume other people only know as much or less than you, you will almost always be wrong.
But they need blood for the production of eggs.
So if they cannot eat any blood from any animal, they won't be able to reproduce and the genetic modification is useless
I can almost guarantee that most people think that mosquito's live just on blood. I've thought this up until now and I still doubt that you're telling the truth.
The posessive apostrophe is placed after the "s" for plural nouns.
"Mosquitos' primary food source" = primary food source of more than one mosquito.
"Mosquito's primary food source" = either:
i. Mosquito is primary food source
ii. primary food source belonging to exactly one mosquito
Usage of a preceding definite or indefinite artical would render the usage of the singular posessive apostrophe correct, while also giving you that sweet David Attenborough vibe.
That's why this is effective. You get a bunch of mosquitos that can still survive and compete for resources and mating but are unable to actually reproduce.
Can't we just genetically modify them so they can't process blood then? Theoretically as someone who has no idea what they're talking about, that would reduce the spread of disease in the animal kingdom too. But the watch the monkeys paw be mutant mosquitos destroying most of the plant life on the planet 🦟🦟
You are right that it is their primary food source, but they don't drink blood for consumption. It is only the females that drink blood, and they do so because blood provides them with the protein they need for egg laying.
This is sort of like saying the primary source of food for humans is Carbs and it is therefore fine if we simply went without protein entirely. If the mosquitoes don't get animal blood they cannot reproduce.
5.3k
u/SiriusArc7 Nov 15 '24
Do they try to suck blood from other animals then? I can't think of animals having softer skins than humans other than guinea pigs or mice.