Yes, but how does that contradict my statement? We would go after the biting species first and species that somehow are causing humans 'harm'. Don't think anyone wants to wipe out 800 species on a whim. IF the tool scales, we can selectively apply it
Why would you state that? That is explicitly not the goal of this effort and there is no justification for taking that approach. It sounds like fear mongering.
I'm confused. I'm not fear-mongering at all. I'm on the opposite side of fear--optimism. This is akin to a proof of concept with this mosquito species. It is likely the learnings will translate to other mosquito species. I have not stated I _want_ to eradicate this or the other species, merely that we theoretically _could_
"Theoretically could" is practically useless without providing a reasonable route to actually happening. The US could theoretically nuke ever major city in Canada, bit that possibility is ingored for almost all practical purposes (and the purposes for which it is not ignored look at the reasons why it would happen.)
Eliminating a species of mostuito is expensive and additional effort breeding and releasing mosquito's for each species you want to eliminate will always require additional work and effort. Why would we expend that effort to eliminate a species that doesn't bite us?
