What predators do we have? It seems, that we as human race got rid of
all animals that could possibly do us harm: we either hunted them to death or put them
behind bars. The few accidents like crocodile or bear attacks that happen
occasionally don’t threaten us on a big scale. Yet, there is a species – no,
even worse: 3500 species – that is able to kill millions of people with just a
sting: the mosquito. That answers the question from the beginning: we do have a
predator, but it is tiny.
Nature, an
international science journal, put out the questions to scientists working in
the field: “So what would happen if there were none? Would anyone or anything
miss them?” Or differently put: would any ecosystem become unstable because one
link in the food chain was missing? What sounds like pure curiosity in the
beginning can easily turn into an ethical matter, because the suggestion behind
the question points at an eradication of 3500 species in favor of one. The
answers from the specialists point in different directions and reach from concerns
about the ecosystem in the Arctic tundra to utterances such as: “[the]
ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have more
people. That’s the consequence.” What Daniel Strickman from the US Department
of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland points out here could be turned around
in asking: what harm would humans do to our ecosystem if they lost their main
predator?
This question, however, doesn’t appear to feel itchy to any of the
scientists mentioned in the article – on the contrary. To seek a way of getting
rid of an annoying discomfort seems to be the common viewpoint, which the
writer of the article, Janet Fang, puts in a nutshell by stating that “[it] is
the limitations of mosquito-killing methods, not the limitations of intent,
that make a world without mosquitoes unlikely.”
What predators do we have? It seems [P] that we as humans [foc,coh] have gotten [T/Asp] rid of all animals that could possibly do us harm: we have either hunted them to death or put them behind bars. The few accidents that happen occasionally, [P][WO] like crocodile or bear attacks, [P] don’t threaten us on a large [W,Reg] scale. Yet, there is a species—no, even worse, [P] 3500 species—that are [WF, Gr] able to kill millions of people with just a sting: mosquitoes. [WF,coh,ref,Gr] And that is the answer: [WF,E,reg] we do have a predator, but it is tiny.
AntwortenLöschenNature, an international science journal, put [W,idiomatic] the following [foc] questions to scientists working in the field: “So what would happen if there were [no mosquitoes]? foc] Would anyone or anything miss them?” Or differently put: would any ecosystem become unstable because one link in the food chain was missing? What sounds like pure curiosity in the beginning can easily turn into an ethical matter, as the suggestion behind the question is the [E,coh,M] eradication of 3500 species in favor of one. The answers from the specialists point in different directions and reach from concerns about the ecosystem in the Arctic tundra to utterances such as: “[the] ecological effect of eliminating harmful mosquitoes is that you have more people. That’s the consequence.” What Daniel Strickman, [P] from the US Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, [P] points out here could be turned around in asking: what harm would humans do to our ecosystem if they lost their main predator?
This question, however, doesn’t appear to feel itchy [cute!] to any of the scientists mentioned in the article—on the contrary. To seek a way of getting rid of an annoying discomfort seems to be the common viewpoint, which the writer of the article, Janet Fang, puts in a nutshell by stating that “[it] is the limitations of mosquito-killing methods, not the limitations of intent, that make a world without mosquitoes unlikely.”
Malin, you have a very appealing style—it’s a little shaggy when it comes to the finer points of mechanics and style, but you have a talent!