You're viewing part of a thread.
Though it didn't "crash" any ecosystems, DDT still accumulates in the environment, where it remains for a long time and causes ongoing harm to insects and the animals that prey on them. Though the most problematic use of DDT by far is in agriculture, its use against mosquitoes isn’t exactly without issue. Not to mention, mosquito populations can become resistant to DDT, requiring more of it to achieve the same effect.
The whole point is that DDT caused a mosquito crash and nothing bad happened. If we can crash mosquitoes without DDT, it would be better for everyone.
I wouldn't say that nothing bad happened. America -- particularly urban areas where anti-mosquito measures have been implemented -- has been dealing with declines of important populations of birds and insects, and we don't fully understand the exact causes. Which is to say, we don't know what role mosquito population reduction has played in this. We have vaccines against mosquito-borne illnesseses, which I believe are preferable to eradicating a species and the potentially devastating consequences we could encounter.
I would argue that habitat destruction, the introduction of hypercarivores, and chemical spraying would have a much larger effect on bird and insect populations around urban areas than a reduction in mosquitoes, but I'll admit that I haven't done any research (primary or secondary) on the topic.
My point was that a genetic attack vector would have far less side-effects than DDT, and pointing out the flaws of DDT does nothing to criticize attacking mosquitoes genetically.
That's true. Criticizing DDT was off-track.