While we consider ourselves the dominant species, we face dangers from other species. While some are large animals such as lions, tigers and bears our greatest foes tend to be tiny. These include insects, bacteria and viruses.
While we have struggled to eliminate threats new advances in technology and science have provided additional options. One of these is genetically modifying species so they cannot reproduce, thus potentially resulting in their extermination. As might be suspected, insects such as disease carrying mosquitoes and screwworms are a prime target. One approach to wiping out mosquitoes was to genetically modify mosquito eggs so adults carry “extermination” genes. The adult males are released into the wild and reproduce with native females. The offspring have the modified gene which causes the female mosquitos to be unable to fly. The males can fly normally, and they continue to “infect” the local population until (in theory) it is exterminated. There are also other ways such exterminations might be conducted, although we seem to be best at exterminating benign species. As might be imagined, the extermination option raises ethical concerns.
One concern is that intentionally exterminating a species seems morally dubious. However, this concern can be countered on utilitarian grounds. After all, if an organism (such as an insect or virus) is harmful to humans and does not have an important role in the ecosystem, then its extermination would seem morally justified because this would create more good than harm. Naturally, if a harmful species were also beneficial, then the calculation becomes more complicated and such extermination could be wrong if it would do more harm than good.
The utilitarian approach can be countered by appealing to another approach to ethics. For example, it could be argued that such extermination is simply wrong regardless of the beneficial consequences to humans. It can, however, be pointed out that species go extinct naturally and, as such, perhaps a case could be made that such exterminations are not inherently wrong. The obvious counter would be to point out that there is a moral difference between a species dying of natural causes and being destroyed by us. The distinction between killing and letting die comes to mind here.
The extermination of a harmful species can be acceptable, provided that the benefits do, in fact, outweigh the harm of extermination. Getting rid of, for example, the HIV virus would be morally acceptable—as far as we know, it has no benefits and only causes harm. There are some beneficial viruses, such as some bacteriophages. In the case of mosquitoes, the concern would be the role it has in the ecosystem, and the impact of its extermination. If, for example, a disease carrying mosquito was an invasive species and its elimination would not impact the ecosystem in a negative way, then it would seem to be acceptable to exterminate it. Naturally, if the extermination is local and the species remains elsewhere, then there are less grounds for moral concern. After all, I have no moral objection to the extermination of the roaches, termites, fleas and other bugs that attempt to reside in my house—there are plenty of these critters in the wild and they would pose a threat to my health and house if they were allowed to dwell with me. But there is a concern that selective extermination could spread. For example, while terminates do pose a threat to my house, I would not want them controlled by means that could bring about the extinction of termites—they are an important part of the ecosystem.
A second point of concern involves methodology. While humans have attempted to wipe out species by killing them the old-fashioned ways (like poisons and gun), the use of genetic modification could be of special moral concern.
There is, of course, the usual concern with “playing God” or tampering with nature. However, as is always pointed out, we routinely accept such tampering. For example, by using artificial light, vaccines, surgery and such we are “playing God” and tampering with nature. As such, the idea that “playing God” is inherently wrong seems dubious. Rather, what is needed is to show that specific acts of “playing God” or tampering are wrong.
There is also a reasonable concern about unintended consequences, as exemplified by the use of DDT which had a host of undesirable effects. I do not, of course, think that modifying mosquitoes will create 1950s style giant mosquitoes that will rampage across the land. However, there are reasonable grounds to be concerned that genetic modification might have unexpected and unpleasant results, and this possibility should be seriously considered when modifying species to exterminate or control them.
A final point I will address is a practical one, namely that even if a species is exterminated by genetic modification another species might take its place. In the case of mosquitoes, it seems likely that if one type of mosquito is wiped out, then another one will move into the niche and the problem, such as a mosquito transmitted illness will return. Naturally, if there are good grounds to believe that the extermination would be effective and ethically acceptable, then this would be another matter.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.