I haven’t researched this extensively, but wouldn’t methods like gene drives be a better option for insects than humane insecticides? If insects lead net-negative lives, gene drives would protect them from harms beyond just the moment of death by reducing population sizes at the source. Furthermore, we don’t currently know how “humane” even the best humane insecticides truly are, and their development process could be costly and difficult. In contrast, gene drive technology already exists; it primarily needs to be adapted for broader industrial use.
Also, this shift could lead to a powerful intersection of interests and provide more incentives for scaling. The public would likely opt for pesticide-free food for health reasons, producers would be eager to eliminate the recurring costs of purchasing and applying chemical agents. (I’m speculating here though, as I don’t know exactly how costly the gene drive method would be, but its self-sustaining nature makes me think that, at some point, it could become more preferable than the perpetual expense of chemicals.) and environmentalists would likely be interested to prevent the pollution of soil and water. So, we could frame this method in a way that would garner large-scale support even from groups that do not prioritize insect welfare.
What are gene drives? Is that like genetically modifying insects to not feel pain and then introducing them into the environment so the pain-free genes eventually replace all the standard genes? (Or whatever other genetic feature, not necessarily pain related)
Exactly, it follows a very similar logic, but when it comes to population control, an infertility gene is what’s generally used.
Gene drives rely on CRISPR/Cas9 technology, which acts as a tool to ensure nearly 100% of offspring inherit the new trait.
In our case;
1- A female infertility gene is inserted into the eggs of the target species.
2- Once these insects are released into the wild, they mate with wild ones, and the CRISPR system cuts the normal gene from the wild parent & replaces it with the infertility gene.
3- This way, the males remain fertile and act as carriers to spread the trait through the population; however, because the females carrying this code become unable to lay eggs, the population quietly and naturally declines over time.
I haven’t researched this extensively, but wouldn’t methods like gene drives be a better option for insects than humane insecticides? If insects lead net-negative lives, gene drives would protect them from harms beyond just the moment of death by reducing population sizes at the source. Furthermore, we don’t currently know how “humane” even the best humane insecticides truly are, and their development process could be costly and difficult. In contrast, gene drive technology already exists; it primarily needs to be adapted for broader industrial use.
Also, this shift could lead to a powerful intersection of interests and provide more incentives for scaling. The public would likely opt for pesticide-free food for health reasons, producers would be eager to eliminate the recurring costs of purchasing and applying chemical agents. (I’m speculating here though, as I don’t know exactly how costly the gene drive method would be, but its self-sustaining nature makes me think that, at some point, it could become more preferable than the perpetual expense of chemicals.) and environmentalists would likely be interested to prevent the pollution of soil and water. So, we could frame this method in a way that would garner large-scale support even from groups that do not prioritize insect welfare.
What are gene drives? Is that like genetically modifying insects to not feel pain and then introducing them into the environment so the pain-free genes eventually replace all the standard genes? (Or whatever other genetic feature, not necessarily pain related)
Exactly, it follows a very similar logic, but when it comes to population control, an infertility gene is what’s generally used.
Gene drives rely on CRISPR/Cas9 technology, which acts as a tool to ensure nearly 100% of offspring inherit the new trait.
In our case;
1- A female infertility gene is inserted into the eggs of the target species.
2- Once these insects are released into the wild, they mate with wild ones, and the CRISPR system cuts the normal gene from the wild parent & replaces it with the infertility gene.
3- This way, the males remain fertile and act as carriers to spread the trait through the population; however, because the females carrying this code become unable to lay eggs, the population quietly and naturally declines over time.
Wouldn’t this have a massive impact on the ecosystem? Crop pests are often beneficial when not on the crop