SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Zealand will attempt to eradicate rats and other unwanted predators by 2050:
An isolated archipelago, New Zealand once hosted almost 200 bird species, many of them, like the iconic kiwi, having become flightless over generations because of a lack of natural predators. But several recently introduced species, such as rats, possums, and weasellike carnivores called stoats, now kill about 25 million of these native birds every year. Yesterday, the country's prime minister, John Key, announced a $20 million commitment of seed money to set up Predator Free New Zealand Ltd., a company that would lead the charge in ridding the nation of the three mammals and five other foreign predators by 2050. Until now, similar eradication efforts by the country have focused on small islands; those efforts boast a 90% success rate in eliminating rodents, says James Russell, a conservation biologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. The new goal, Russell says, is "the modern equivalent to landing someone on Mars" and will ultimately require new technologies and billions of dollars to succeed. But he is optimistic because local communities and organizations, which could foot a large portion of the total bill, are on board.
[...] Also, once eliminated, rats will likely keep coming back in, Merrill notes. "They can do it if they can prevent the rats from jumping off the boats," he predicts. Russell says that's doable. "We are currently close to a 100% success rate in intercepting new mammal arrivals on the islands." New Zealand's track record on its smaller islands bodes well, Martin says. "This challenge is of mind-blowing proportions, but if anyone can do it, the New Zealanders can."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 01 2016, @01:08PM
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/01/06/036103 (though it's been known to be false for a while, it was being called a "fake fact" back in 2014. And since when were counts the appropriate way of measuring whether we're "more" of one thing than the other? That's as meaningful as "there are more insects than bricks in your house" - how is mass not the more sensible measure?)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Touché) by Derf the on Monday August 01 2016, @09:48PM
Thus you think the concept proposed is technically unachievable?
That because you do not trust his judgement you think we should not use CRISPR to ensure Y chromosome dominance in a population of an invasive vertebrata (vertebrata which is presently responsible for the imminent world-wide extinction of several species) and thus the local extinction of the species without the otherwise resulting mass poisonings, collateral poisonings, immune resistance, behaviour modification(eg bait shyness), mind boggling expenditure and likely programme failure?
I can think of some reasons for being extremely careful of selfish-gene Y chromosome dominance releases, as I previously mentioned, but a scientists interview skills|techniques is not one of them.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 01 2016, @10:25PM
No, I simply think he's unreliable. Somebody reliable, someone who cared about correctness, would not a fake fact that that simply slip past. Which is why I worded my complaint about him the way that I did - I can't trust him. That's what science is about, it's about not trusting people. If he's open enough about what he wants to test, then independent replication studies can be performed simultaniously. Eventually.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Derf the on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:24PM
It's just that a many 1000 fold decrease in cost and freedom from future funding risks, as the costs, such as they are, are almost entirely up front seemed to me to be among several of the ideas brought forward that are significantly more important than her throw away line, and thus warranting some comment... unless your distrust was such that you then didn't believe in any of the modelling or basic science done and presented, hence the "thus ".