or it will collapse the mosquito population and have a cascade effect on all the animals that rely on them, and those that rely on the previous ones, and so on. Other than that, really nothing can go wrong.
"Aedes aegypti species, which are *not native* to the Cayman Islands and are the main vector for Zika as well as other viruses, including chikingunya and dengue."
Mosquito-born disease affects lots of people around the globe, but how do we know the little flying Frankenstein monsters aren't going to end up enabling future mutations that helps disease (existing, or new ones) to spread to even MORE people?
Because they are sterile, unable to spread genes and male, unable to bite and spread disease. And if it loses the sterility somehow, that's the wild mosquito now isn't it? This tech lest you target one specific species while leaving all the other bugs, birds, even other mosquito species unpoisoned. You can even only release enough sterile males to keep populations lowered instead of extinct. Wild mosquitoes can also mutate in all the dangerous ways you mentioned, at least as easily. If you let viruses like Zika spread than it can mutate into more dangerous forms. That is millions of times more likely than _sterility_ creating a reproductive advantange.
Instead of this, why not just use the irradiated sterile mosquitos instead? Its been done before
Not sure about this specific species, but from what I'd heard radiation levels required to sterilize often make the insects quite sick and less able to compete for mates. So it's not as effective.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
That a much harder genetic engineering problem. It also involves having the GMO organism reproducing in the wild, which will make regulations and environmental assessments much more difficult.
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour.
The flavour problem is not because of GMO, it is because the industry does not care about flavour at all. http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's more like bashing Ford for it's role (along with GM) in, say, killing off public transit or the electric car. The producer is distorting the market and large parts of human civilization for their long term profit; and doing it at a scale that's hard to grasp...
More like bashing all car companies, including Tesla, because of those business practices of companies like Ford and GM.
What does Golden Rice (GMO), developed to save lives, non-profit, by academics, have to do with Monsanto? Big agribusiness business practices and mono-culture crops were a problem before GMOs entered the picture. Why not actually address the root of the problems, which are the business practices, rather the the technology?
Why would you expect golden rice to somehow be less expensive than regular rice? And besides, any land suitable for growing rice is suitable for growing other vegetables.
Golden rice was not developed for profit, it will cost exactly the same but have more nutrients. It is for subsistence farmers who are lacking vitamin A, due to extreme poverty.
You are acting like there are not thousands of children dying and going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency. Now for no reason, because a zero additional cost fix has been developed.
The main character is dealing with the side effects of medical age reversal. The youth have determined that the rate of medical advancements will increase lifespans at the same rate they are aging.
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy. (Which could fluctuate with market/technology). In other words, the extra cost should be the same cost to clean up the extra pollution produced. Otherwise the polluter is being subsidized by a price paid by others.
Say you compare bio-diesel with regular diesel, bio-diesel would be expected to cost more in dollars because it involved removing CO2 from the atomosphere. To be comparable with regular diesel you would have to include the cost of removing the CO2. That would be an exact and non-arbitrary price, since the CO2 pollution causes the damage.
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
As long as they don't use a website to gather the funds in an organized manner. Say a bunch of small investments from a large group of friends over a large, geographic area.
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky