cantsurf

But what's the actual problem with the ability for posts to have negative scores? Are we trying to prevent people from feeling the unpleasant sensation associated with THE DISAPPROVAL OF OTHERS!?

Oh no, a few downvotes and you get buried in the tens and tens of other comments!

(He's calling trump poop)

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and ideas. I hope progress can be made (with minimal unintended consequence), controlling diseases and disease vectors.

And to add to that, something that used to cost $20 in 1995 dollars costs $40 in 2023 dollars.

And to add to that, something that used to cost $20 in 1995 dollars costs $40 in 2023 dollars.

And to add to that, something that used to cost $20 in 1995 dollars costs $40 in 2023 dollars.

So, the males don't bite humans (so they arent a vector for malaria). If we assume, for arguments sake, that some outrageous number of them (like half of them) actually did end up being fertile, what would the impact of that be? That would still mean that 375 million of the sterile offspring producing mosquitoes were still released. Wouldnt that still be a benefit? Sure, we would have temporarily increased the male mosquito population, but is the availability of males the limiting factor in the ability of female mosquitoes to reproduce? The sterile offspring producing males should have still reduced the total number of female mosquitoes who were able to have fertile children.

You can clearly see my bias here. I think this mosquito experiment was probably a good thing but I'm interested in understanding the mechanism by which you think the release of these mosquitoes may have led to these malaria cases.

That is fun to think about! How many of the 750 million would need to have mutated enough to become fertile again, to negate the population decreasing effects of the sterile ones, and how likely is it that this happened?

I'm a little dumb. Can you help me explain what's going on here?

They released a bunch of genetically modified mosquitoes, that sabotage reproduction and decrease the mosquito population.

About 3 years later, malaria was found in the same area as the decreased mosquito population.

Are you suggesting that they genetically modified the mosquitoes to have malaria?That's not how malaria works. Are you suggesting that they were just releasing malaria mosquitoes? Then why would they draw so much attention to themselves?

Now that we're finding malaria in that area, shouldn't we be trying to control the mosquito population and be glad that they have been suppressing it?

What am I missing here?

Can someone parse this for me?

I apologize for making the assumption that you were American.

Its my understanding that even liberal american politicians are rather conservative, from a global perspective. This is probably the source of my confusion in our exchange.

But I agree with you that many people complain and are jealous when they see others being prosperous when they struggle to thrive. Also, people seem to just like to complain in general.

Here's a section that I found from a website, on democratic socialism:

" In the present day, "Democratic socialist" and "socialist" are often treated as interchangeable terms, which can be confusing given democratic socialists don't necessarily think the government should immediately take control of all aspects of the economy.

They do, however, generally believe the government should help provide for people's most basic needs and help all people have an equal chance at achieving success. "

I think in this context, democratic socialists are just in support of government having more influence in business, strengthening unions and worker protections, addressing the massive wealth inequality. The current american government is really more on the side of business than on the side of workers.