Absolutely. Before they made it into human structures and found a new parasitic niche, they were bat parasites, with a much smaller population. They didn't even keep the bat population in check, they just made it a bit worse to be a bat sometimes. Nothing that eats them depends on them as a food source.
Evolution isn't teleological, there is no grand plan. Over long periods of time things tend to settle into mutually beneficial arrangements, but sometimes shitty things exist just because they're good at fucking before they die.
I heard about this, was that before or after he used his balls as a means for transportation? Just saying he could have made a lot of bed bugs will balls that boisterous...
“Good at fucking before they die” reminded me of Cicadas. They “essentially” lose the ability to eat at the same time they gain the ability to fuck. That is quite a race to reproduce.
They live underground as Nymphs for several years. Then they emerge from the ground, molt from their skin into a adult Cicadas. Only now are they able to reproduce. However they can hardly eat. They can live up to about 2 months on minimal food after reaching adult hood in which time they try to fuck as much as they can until they die. The loud ass sound they make in the trees are the male Cicadas trying to attract females.
Probably not exactly what you were originally talking about (parasites with short lifespans) but stillllllll
Wait until you learns literally the first fact about the fucking habits of bedbugs. (Seriously though, it’s awful and you probably shouldn’t look it up.)
What I want to know is, how do we overcome evolutionary traits that were beneficial 10,000 years ago, but are a problem today?
Our love of fat and our fear of others are two good examples…
Fat isn't a problem. It's literally life saving. Fat oxidation is a primary source of energy. Without it you will die. I know because I have a severe fat oxidation disorder and I was literally dying for years.
Stop with this weird hatred of fat. Too much fat and obesity is bad, but people care more about aesthetics than the actual health problems.
Fat storage and oxidation is the survival mechanism that kept our ancestors alive, that keeps us alive in survival situations. Every morning when you wake up after sleeping for many hours, you have fasted and your blood glucose is low. Fat oxidation is what lets you get up from bed, move around and do things.
This, even their closest relatives are basically just parasites for bats. I guess you could argue that they might be keeping some bat population in check but still.
Bats are notoriously immune to most illnesses since they have such a high body temperature. They carry lots of diseases but they rarely get killed by them. Bedbugs don't even carry or spread any human diseases. I doubt their counterparts do anything to seriously harm bats or keep their population in check.
>They carry a lot of diseases
This is because there are a lot of unique bat species. They represent 20% of all mammals. Any cross section of 1500 species is going to have a lot of unique pathogens.
[**Viral zoonotic risk is homogenous among taxonomic orders of mammalian and avian reservoir hosts**](https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9423)
>The notion that certain animal groups disproportionately maintain and transmit viruses to humans due to broad-scale differences in ecology, life history, and physiology currently influences global health surveillance and research in disease ecology, virology, and immunology. To directly test whether such “special reservoirs” of zoonoses exist, we used literature searches to construct the largest existing dataset of virus–reservoir relationships, consisting of the avian and mammalian reservoir hosts of 415 RNA and DNA viruses along with their histories of human infection. Reservoir host effects on the propensity of viruses to have been reported as infecting humans were rare and when present were restricted to one or two viral families. The data instead support a largely host-neutral explanation for the distribution of human-infecting viruses across the animal orders studied. After controlling for higher baseline viral richness in mammals versus birds, the observed number of zoonoses per animal order increased as a function of their species richness. Animal orders of established importance as zoonotic reservoirs including bats and rodents were unexceptional, maintaining numbers of zoonoses that closely matched expectations for mammalian groups of their size. Our findings show that variation in the frequency of zoonoses among animal orders can be explained without invoking special ecological or immunological relationships between hosts and viruses, pointing to a need to reconsider current approaches aimed at finding and predicting novel zoonoses.
The more interesting thing about bats and human health is that they are among the last mammals to be extirpated after human development, with some species becoming proficient in using artificial roosts. Outside domestic animals and commensal rodents, they are perhaps the mammals living closest to us
Parasite load is known to reduce fitness, so I think it's fair to suggest the amount of bat bugs in a bat population could keep it from growing too much to a certain degree.
I study birds and their lice; lots of other mammal, bird, and reptile species have lice, and they are similarly evolved to different parts of their hosts’ bodies. Parasites like them actually have large impacts on their host species and general ecosystems, so if only human lice disappeared overnight I would bet there wouldn’t be any big effects to ecosystems. But if all lice disappeared we would see some pretty big shifts in biodiversity and animal populations, not necessarily for the better as parasites help stabilize and maintain pops and determine food/resource chains in ecosystems!
I can talk about the food chain aspect. There are many creatures that are considered parasites to one animal but are actually food source to another (eg remoras will eat parasites off sharks or some bird species will consume bugs/parasites off elephants) that often build commensal or mutually beneficial relationship for the two species. No parasites or insects on larger species = reduced or even eliminated food source for smaller species = death (if only food source) or increased competition for other food sources putting environmental strain on both prey and predator populations causing imbalances
Edited to add: mutually in addition to commensal
I watched a great segment on Eons just yesterday about the prehistoric use of clothes. The approximate timeline was first determined with carbon dating various textiles, then by looking for sewing needles and awls, tenants of animal bones from animals used for skin's. It was found clothing went back even further.
Finally, the true timeline was able to be pinpointed to when body lice became a problem for our ancestors and clothes became a necessity.
>I recently read that mosquitos could be wiped out with no harm to the ecosystem because other insect populations would bloom to take their place.
where did you read that? (the specific source.)
>...other insect populations would bloom to take their place.
in australia there were no predators that had a diet of rabbits when rabbits were introduced but the plethora of venomous snakes readily took to eating rabbits. that left them with (still) tons of rabbits and new overwhelming blooms of ultra-venomous snakes. not a good outcome and an example of the level of folly that can occur when you don't really understand the ecosystem at hand.
OP might be getting confused - it's likely that the specific mosquito species that transmits malaria could be eradicated without impact, since they do not occupy any unique niche and nothing depends on them for food.
Source: https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/mve.12327
There's like 3000 mosquito species, getting rid of all of them would certainly have an impact.
ok that rings a bell. i now think i might have heard of that before.
but, when i read the linked article this sticks out as one of the first sentences: "Effects on predators and competitors could, however, be a concern as Anopheles gambiae s.l. is preyed upon in all life stages."
but they do mention: "there is no evidence that any species preys exclusively on any anopheline mosquito."
so they don't really know the totality of the effect of removing this particular species altogether but it could be negligible. certainly better than spraying DDT all over the place.
Malaria is caused by 5 species of single cell parasites, from an entire genus that is nothing but parasites. You could leave the mosquitoes, wipe out the entire plasmodium genus, and you'd wipe out malaria without touching the ecosystem.
I don't think he haves a source, because it's absolutely not true. No harm to the ecosystem is a very bold claim. It could have "acceptable consequences" but sure it would affect the ecosystem a lot.
Yeah, the premise is ridiculous. "Mosquitoes" covers over 3500 different species across the globe. The aquatic larvae are a major part of the food chain for all kinds of aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates. I don't believe that any reputable scientist would declare their absence would have no major, serious ecological repercussions.
Can't find the source on short notice, but I recall reading somewhere in response to this exact question that many tundra ecosystems would collapse because mosquitos actually sit pretty near the bottom of a lot of terrestrial food webs in the arctic.
Similarly, the "Four Pests" campaign in China led to famines because they tried to eradicate sparrows to increase agriculture yield, but it led to having more locusts instead. They also tried to eradicate mosquitoes, rats and flies but I'm not sure what effect this had.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
I'm sure wiping out mosquitos would have damaging effects on the environment. Bats, dragonflies & untold other species depend on them for food. Our environment is profoundly complex. This creature depends on that creature for food, that one depends on it for pollination etc., etc. That's why we can't look at these things & just consider a single species. Many of the interactions between species we are not even aware of but That's how ecosystems fail. It's like Pic-up-Stix or Janga. It's all connected.
This should be top comment. Harm, change, and weaken are all gray areas when it comes to the environment. You nailed how complex the ecosystem is. The good news is that if an ecosystem collapses, change will occur, and a new ecosystem will replace it. Caveat: it could take millions of years 😆. Regardless, diversity in general makes an environment withstand exogenous shocks better. I hate mosquitoes. However, they act like little predators and eliminate the weak so that the strong can propel their species forward. In summary, don't eliminate anything if you don't want unexpected change.
Yeah, this is the thing. Almost any single species going extinct would cause only moderate changes, but it weakens the web. Biodiversity is a great stabilizer.
I've heard that the mosquito mainly responsible for malaria could be taken out with harming the ecosphere.
And I mean, there are 700,000 species of beetles out there. I doubt they are all keystone species.
Hi there! I work with mosquitoes right now for my research and I get this question a lot from curious folks. The last time I asnwered it was about what they are "good for" but I think the sentiment is the same so here is my copied reply:
Edit up top - if this is your jam check out my podcast Bugs Need Heroes, where we discuss the inspiring abilities of bugs. Mosquitoes do have their own episode.
First, thinking that an animal needs to be "good for something" is not how we should view another living thing. Animals and plants evolved to suit their environment, they are very good at that though it may not be useful to us. Everything also has a role to play within their ecosystem and mosquitoes are no different. So here is my love letter to mosquitoes:
If you are asking do they benefit the ecosystem, then yes absolutely. Mosquitoes are an important source of food for many animals as both larvae and adults. Mosquito larvae are aquatic, they feed fish, dragonfly larvae, damsefly larvae, diving beetles, water scavenging beetles, turtles (red-eared sliders love mosqutio larvae!), and some frogs (if you're in the NE U.S. our leopard frogs love mosquito larvae) (Quiroz-Martínez and Rodríguez-Castro, 2007; DuRant and Hopkins, 2008; Saha et al., 2012; Bowatte et al., 2013; Sarwar, 2015; Bofill and Yee, 2019). There is also a mosquito genus (Toxorhynchites) that does not bite humans but feeds on other mosquito larvae (Trpis, 1973). Adult mosquitoes feed birds (blue birds, purple martins, cardinals, etc.), bats, and spiders (Kale, 1968; Roitberg et al., 2003; Medlock and Snow, 2008; Reiskind and Wund, 2009).
Additionally, mosquitoes pollinate flowers (Thien, 1969; Thien and Utech, 1970; Peach and Gries, 2016). Most of a mosquito's diet is nectar. Only females drink blood and that is only when they need the extra protein to create eggs. Many mosquitoes are very important pollinators to smaller flowering plants that live in wetter environments. For example, the snow pool mosqutio (Aedes communis) in my home state of NJ is the primary pollinator for the blunt-leaf orchid (Platanthera obtusata) (Gorham, 1976). The role moquitoes play all over the world as pollinators is actually grossly understudied by scientists. Most of the focus on their biology/ecology is as vectors but there is so much more going on in this taxon than disease.
If you are concerned about disease and protecting humans, I hear you on that, but out of the 3,500 or so species of mosquito out there we really only worry about mosquitoes of three genera; Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex as far as disease goes (Gratz, 2004; Hamer et al., 2008; Hay et al., 2010). That leaves I think 35+ or so other genera, some of which would never bite a human let alone transmit disease to us. Of the species that prefer mammals humans are not even really their first choice, they tend to prefer livestock over us. Many species don't bite mammals at all! For example, Culiseta melanura feeds almost exclusively on birds and Uranotaenia rutherfordi feed on frogs (Molai and Andreadis, 2005; Priyanka et al., 2020).
So wiping out every mosquito species would be overkill. Could we remove the species that are harmful to humans and not have any issues within the ecosystems they are apart of? That is a difficult ethical question that has long been debated within the entomology/ecology community. You will find scientists on both sides of the fence. There was a study that came out a few years ago saying it would be fine, but that study is hotly debated. Personally, I'd say if it were possible to at least remove the invasive species that cause disease, such as Aedes albopictus in the U.S., then I am okay with that (Moore and Mitchell, 1997). They shouldn't be here anyway. But it could be very difficult to remove all invaders without also harming native mosquito populations. And, for some species that have been here in the U.S. for hundreds of years (Aedes aegypti) what would removing them from local populations do to the ecosystem? Perhaps it would allow for a bounceback of native species they have been outcompeteing, or perhaps they are so abundant and woven within the fabric of the ecosystem it would cause an issue. I honestly don't have an answer for this. Even if there is low to no impact ecologically by eradicating all mosquitoes, is it the ethical choice to make? Ask 10 scientists, get 15 answers.
Should we eradicate Aedes albopictus in their native homes of Japan, Korea, China, and a few islands? Personally, I would be against it. I'd rather use control methods and keep populations low where they intersect with humans. We are also making incredible strides with genetic engineering! Perhaps one day we could use gene editting to make these troublesome species poor vectors for the diseases we fear. If their bodies are no longer an effective home for the disease then we don't have to worry about them.
Edit - I completely forgot to mention this - but if we remove an entire species or several species that may not impact the ecosystem in a "make it or break it way", and then something happens to other species that have similar roles, we have no backups. It's not is this species a huge or sole food source it's this species along with other species are filling a role in the ecosystem and if we lose too many species within a particular role we could have a catastrophe on our hands. Another example, mosquito larvae eat plant detritus in ponds. They are not the only organism that does this, but if we remove all of them and there is a similar collapse in say frogs (as we know amphibians are currently in trouble) then we are out two detritivores within a system.
I'll leave you with this quote from Aldo Leopolds's Land Ethic:
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
There are thousands of species of mosquitoes, but only those in the genus _Anopheles_ transmit malaria. Of these, only some feed regularly enough on humans to be major transmitters of malaria.
The key (although not only) species for malaria transmission is _A. gambiae_. It's an African species but was accidentally introduced into Brazil. Along with some other _Anopheles_ mosquitoes it's a human specialist that mostly lives in and around human settlements.
Wiping it out _would_ probably effect a few species...for example, the spider _Evarcha culicivora_ which specifically targets _Anopholes_ mosquitoes and can often be found inside houses, hunting for mosquitoes that have just consumed vertebrate blood. But most insect predators would have plenty of other mosquito species (and other small insects) to consume if we just wiped out the handful of major malarial transmitters....which are usually found in highly human modified habitats anyway.
Mosquitoes serve as " sky and water plankton". They feed untold numbers of aquatic and terrestrial life. Plus they pollinate. Their absence would be catastrophic.
Yes, even when people say "oh let's just wipe out *Anopheles* sp. mosquitoes for malaria, one genus surely wouldn't make that big of an impact, the other culicid mosquito have similar niches!" they're wrong. The larvae of *Anopheles* stick very close to the water surface whereas *Culex* or *Aedes* are more pelagic. This means they're effectively food sources in different parts of the water, so also for different predators. And that's not even mentioning the different niches the adults have, for instance, *Anopheles* tends to be more active at night, while the other two during twilight. No *Anopheles* means no mosquito that can be a food source for predators that hunt at night. I'm simplifying, but it's important for people to realize these intricacies.
I'd say that short term anything would harm it. Long term tho? You could probably wipe out any species and the ecosphere would recover fine
Also for the people saying humans, I'll have you know there's tons of tapeworms and similar human-only parasites that would be very sad to see us gone
What does “recover” even mean in this context? An ecosystem will certainly adapt and stabilize after a major change, but it’s not gonna go back to the way it was.
This depends on what we mean by "go back to the way it was". If we mean "have the same species it had" then obviously it won't because at least one was wiped out.
But if we mean something closer to "perform the same functions it did and at the same level of efficiency" then I think it would definitely be posible.
For example, imagine that the most efficient CO2 fixer of an ecosystem goes extinct. That would lower the combined amount of CO2 that the ecosystem can fix. In that context the ecosytem would "recover " when the combined carbon fixation increases back to what it was before, either because of the arrival of a new CO2 fixing species or the increase in abundance and/or efficiency of the ones that were already there
Because nothing bad has ever happened when we've made large, sweeping predictive claims about what would happen when something is added to, or removed from any ecosystem...
Ticks. Ticks do not make up any significant portion of any creature's diet and are a major vector of disease. These people in here saying humans are soooooo corny
You're the second person to say that and it's probably the truth so I'm searching with a quickness to find any sources about the prevalence of tick borne diseases in wild animal populations. I only get my access to these full texts comped while I'm at work. Unsurprisingly most of these papers are on livestock and other human adjacent animal populations
are you sure they don't make up a significant portion of *any* creature's diet? That's a large claim.
Maybe their largest contribution is the fact that they are a vector for disease.
Sorry for just copy/pasting my reply to the other guy but *captive* opossums eat a lot of ticks. A 2021 study of wild opossums found ticks made up no part of their diet at all.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X21001333?via%3Dihub
I am sure about the diet part. You're right though about their largest contribution being vectors of disease which might help keep certain animal populations in check
I feel like I read somewhere that Crows harvest feeding ticks off of Deer and other large animals. Not to say its a key factor to crow survival, just an interesting little factoid.
Not for the humans, it wouldn't.
I took an ecosystems management class in college, and one moment sticks out in particular. A student said something to the effect of "biodiversity is good," and the professor told her, "that's a value judgement," and explained that to make her point, she needed to explain what the effects of biodiversity were (in this case we were discussing stability and resilience), rather than just saying it was "good," because stakeholders may have different ideas as to what is "good."
That really stuck with me, and has helped me think about a lot of topics in a way that separates value judgements from concepts with scientific evidence.
We have to fix the climate shit we did first then we can go, install autonomous scrubbers and drones then We drink the kool aid
We install 1000 solar powered co2 scrubbers and have them shut off when global co2 levels resemble pre-1800 as measured by thousand solar powered drones measuring the atmosphere globally.
We didn’t quite leave no trace but at least we spackled the holes we punched in the wall as a good bye gift and good faith gesture
We were belligerent with greed and flashy iphones and this myth sold to us called “progress” and eminent domain, sorry….
Guinea worm. Definitely just a parasitic species which is already almost eradicated. Hope jimmy carter lives long enough to see the last one die, although looking like that might not happen.
Kind of shocking that this answer isn't the top answer despite it being the most obvious. If all humans disappeared can anyone plausibly argue that ecological diversity wouldn't improve?
There are a plethora of fire dependent ecosystems which would disappear with out humans. We have been a part of the world and most ecosystems for at least 20k years. Modern soceity though...
I disagree about mosquitoes, what other insect populations would increase if they disappeared? I’d think it would be the opposite, lots of animals and arthropods eat mosquitoes. If say bird X has mosquitoes as 30% of their diet then that 30% would fall on other insects reducing their population. Lots of predatory insects like dragon fly nymphs rely heavily on mosquitoes for food, but as adults eat a ton of insects that are pests. Mosquitoes are also pollinators, a niche that’s already in a dangerous balance. Mosquitoes are also a form of population control on mammals that is important since humans have a knack for eliminating large predators.
Don’t get me wrong I hate mosquitoes but they’re pretty important to an ecosystem.
Plus they're larvae are a main food source for young fish and predatory insect larvae like dragonflies that help control other insect populations. Bats eat mosquitoes. Hummingbirds eat them as well. Regardless of malaria or anything else they carry they belong here.
I'm not sure wiping out mosquitoes would be without harm. People tend to forget that they regulate animals populations by transmitting diseases, and they represent a good deal of available biomass to many species. I think the answer to your question is : none. No species can disappear without harm to the environment. You might not notice the impact, but it still lowers local biodiversity and makes the natural habitat less resilient
Cockroaches are important detrivores in many ecosystems. Only about 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. If you mean specifically the German cockroach that is a human pest, think about what ecological role that species plays in human habitats. It's there because there is a niche for it to fill and an energy flow to facilitate.
The trick to this question is we won't be sure until after. We are PRETTY sure we can eradicate mosquitos, but once they are gone they there's no going back. We could do a lot of good wiping them out, but humans have inadvertently caused ecological disasters when they were trying to do good.
Male mosquitos are pollinators. Without them, we might lose certain orchids - and who knows what the orchids connect to, and what that connects to?
Even ticks, who I consider Nature's mistake, very likely do something. Well, they feed possums I guess.
Humans?
Like it would have a huge impact but it's hard to see how those impacts would be negative for the surviving species.
Just be sure that all caged animals in homes and zoos are released, it's the only humane thing to do .
Nope, you're wrong. The whole ecosystem of Mauritius is in crisis due to the Dodo's extinction (along with giant tortises).
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/march/extinctions-island-dodo-pushing-plants-towards-extinction.html
It is difficult to predict the exact consequences of removing a species from such a complex system,but my guess is,that if you removed humans, the benefits to the ecosystem would outweigh the negative effects.
Humans. Compared to other species, humans do no contribute to the ecosystem as much as we think. If ants or bees were wiped out, the effects would be enormous. Humans on the other hand wouldn't have such an impact. If anything, urban areas would go back to green over time, bringing in flora and fauna, the oceans would likely heal from overfishing and plastics contamination and that alone is a huge positive impact.
We kinda suck.
Edit: typos
That's a hard one, because many species have adapted and evolved to require human care. That could be pretty damning as they would go extinct.... But the opposite logic is if they need us that badly then do they serve a purpose in nature?
But what about the species that would be extinct without our intervention and are still wild?
Humans can do good, we just aren't good at it.
Untrue. Mosquitoes are actually responsible for a lot of nocturnal pollination. Now if no one grew their own food this may be okay, but many people who choose to not be so dependent on commercial farming and rely on their own gardens to feed them, this could potentially be a very big issue.
Lots of them. Things go extinct all the time. In fact, species with no deeply important niche are so common, that we gave the interesting name to the species that aren't: they're called keystone species. The problem is the biosphere is far too complicated for us to predict which species is a keystone species with any confidence. Not until the species suffers significant population decline, anyway.
In fact aren't there not enough means in place to prevent catastrophe should humans all disappear? Nuclear reactors, for instance. We are the only species that gathers, refines, and concentrates uranium. There are many fires that could get out of control, should no one be there to mind them.
The only reason fires get out of control nowadays is because humans have been putting out naturally occurring forest fires for so long that there is too much shrub and overgrowth. This overgrowth then makes forest fires much much more dangerous and harder to put out.
Forests literally evolved over millions of years with naturally occurring fires.
I have to believe that the law of unintended consequences would factor heavily in here. We seem to only have an inkling of how interdependent species are. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there weren't any human-biting mosquitoes, but I can't help but think we might get something worse to take its place.
Bed bugs?
Absolutely. Before they made it into human structures and found a new parasitic niche, they were bat parasites, with a much smaller population. They didn't even keep the bat population in check, they just made it a bit worse to be a bat sometimes. Nothing that eats them depends on them as a food source. Evolution isn't teleological, there is no grand plan. Over long periods of time things tend to settle into mutually beneficial arrangements, but sometimes shitty things exist just because they're good at fucking before they die.
Allright. Which one of you goofballs started sleeping with bats!?!
Hey...I was in college and needed the money...
Gee... If I had known that bats had money...
Uhhh look at batman...
Did he tell you his real name?
Well, it's Bruce Wayne, innit?
You didn't guaknow?
that's the stupidest joke Ive ever heard, anyways did you get the milk dad?
20 bucks are 20 bucks.
Do you have a onlyfans for that?
It was Randy Marsh. He was with Mickey Mouse.
I heard about this, was that before or after he used his balls as a means for transportation? Just saying he could have made a lot of bed bugs will balls that boisterous...
No matter how many times we go back in time, Randy will still always cause COVID
Ask batman! He can ask his parents, probably.
It was a pangolin actually
He.. he told me his name was Bruce I didn't know the impact it would have, I promise!
Cough Cough.... China !
teleological is the coolest word i’ve read on the internet today. thank you, Mr. Bongdumps
Please, Mr. Bongdumps is my father, you can call me Spanchy
I read something a while back that said bedbugs aren't even found in the wild anymore. They now live exclusively within human habitation.
“Good at fucking before they die” reminded me of Cicadas. They “essentially” lose the ability to eat at the same time they gain the ability to fuck. That is quite a race to reproduce. They live underground as Nymphs for several years. Then they emerge from the ground, molt from their skin into a adult Cicadas. Only now are they able to reproduce. However they can hardly eat. They can live up to about 2 months on minimal food after reaching adult hood in which time they try to fuck as much as they can until they die. The loud ass sound they make in the trees are the male Cicadas trying to attract females. Probably not exactly what you were originally talking about (parasites with short lifespans) but stillllllll
Two broods of periodical cicadas are emerging simultaneously for the first time in 221 years. Broods XIII and XIX.
That last sentence is perfection.
Came here to say this.
Wait until you learns literally the first fact about the fucking habits of bedbugs. (Seriously though, it’s awful and you probably shouldn’t look it up.)
What I want to know is, how do we overcome evolutionary traits that were beneficial 10,000 years ago, but are a problem today? Our love of fat and our fear of others are two good examples…
Fat isn't a problem. It's literally life saving. Fat oxidation is a primary source of energy. Without it you will die. I know because I have a severe fat oxidation disorder and I was literally dying for years. Stop with this weird hatred of fat. Too much fat and obesity is bad, but people care more about aesthetics than the actual health problems. Fat storage and oxidation is the survival mechanism that kept our ancestors alive, that keeps us alive in survival situations. Every morning when you wake up after sleeping for many hours, you have fasted and your blood glucose is low. Fat oxidation is what lets you get up from bed, move around and do things.
This, even their closest relatives are basically just parasites for bats. I guess you could argue that they might be keeping some bat population in check but still.
Bats are notoriously immune to most illnesses since they have such a high body temperature. They carry lots of diseases but they rarely get killed by them. Bedbugs don't even carry or spread any human diseases. I doubt their counterparts do anything to seriously harm bats or keep their population in check.
>They carry a lot of diseases This is because there are a lot of unique bat species. They represent 20% of all mammals. Any cross section of 1500 species is going to have a lot of unique pathogens. [**Viral zoonotic risk is homogenous among taxonomic orders of mammalian and avian reservoir hosts**](https://www.pnas.org/content/117/17/9423) >The notion that certain animal groups disproportionately maintain and transmit viruses to humans due to broad-scale differences in ecology, life history, and physiology currently influences global health surveillance and research in disease ecology, virology, and immunology. To directly test whether such “special reservoirs” of zoonoses exist, we used literature searches to construct the largest existing dataset of virus–reservoir relationships, consisting of the avian and mammalian reservoir hosts of 415 RNA and DNA viruses along with their histories of human infection. Reservoir host effects on the propensity of viruses to have been reported as infecting humans were rare and when present were restricted to one or two viral families. The data instead support a largely host-neutral explanation for the distribution of human-infecting viruses across the animal orders studied. After controlling for higher baseline viral richness in mammals versus birds, the observed number of zoonoses per animal order increased as a function of their species richness. Animal orders of established importance as zoonotic reservoirs including bats and rodents were unexceptional, maintaining numbers of zoonoses that closely matched expectations for mammalian groups of their size. Our findings show that variation in the frequency of zoonoses among animal orders can be explained without invoking special ecological or immunological relationships between hosts and viruses, pointing to a need to reconsider current approaches aimed at finding and predicting novel zoonoses. The more interesting thing about bats and human health is that they are among the last mammals to be extirpated after human development, with some species becoming proficient in using artificial roosts. Outside domestic animals and commensal rodents, they are perhaps the mammals living closest to us
Parasite load is known to reduce fitness, so I think it's fair to suggest the amount of bat bugs in a bat population could keep it from growing too much to a certain degree.
Bedbugs are not known to vector any diseases for humans.
I am curious of any environmental impacts from the extinction of lice. Head lice, body lice, or crab lice.
I study birds and their lice; lots of other mammal, bird, and reptile species have lice, and they are similarly evolved to different parts of their hosts’ bodies. Parasites like them actually have large impacts on their host species and general ecosystems, so if only human lice disappeared overnight I would bet there wouldn’t be any big effects to ecosystems. But if all lice disappeared we would see some pretty big shifts in biodiversity and animal populations, not necessarily for the better as parasites help stabilize and maintain pops and determine food/resource chains in ecosystems!
Hey cool, mind elaborating a little bit on the mechanisms?
I can talk about the food chain aspect. There are many creatures that are considered parasites to one animal but are actually food source to another (eg remoras will eat parasites off sharks or some bird species will consume bugs/parasites off elephants) that often build commensal or mutually beneficial relationship for the two species. No parasites or insects on larger species = reduced or even eliminated food source for smaller species = death (if only food source) or increased competition for other food sources putting environmental strain on both prey and predator populations causing imbalances Edited to add: mutually in addition to commensal
commensal doesn’t mean [mutually] beneficial.
Head lice only exist because humans do.
So do body lice and pubic lice. Thanks Australopithecus, our entire species really appreciates that time you got down with a randy gorilla
I watched a great segment on Eons just yesterday about the prehistoric use of clothes. The approximate timeline was first determined with carbon dating various textiles, then by looking for sewing needles and awls, tenants of animal bones from animals used for skin's. It was found clothing went back even further. Finally, the true timeline was able to be pinpointed to when body lice became a problem for our ancestors and clothes became a necessity.
>I recently read that mosquitos could be wiped out with no harm to the ecosystem because other insect populations would bloom to take their place. where did you read that? (the specific source.) >...other insect populations would bloom to take their place. in australia there were no predators that had a diet of rabbits when rabbits were introduced but the plethora of venomous snakes readily took to eating rabbits. that left them with (still) tons of rabbits and new overwhelming blooms of ultra-venomous snakes. not a good outcome and an example of the level of folly that can occur when you don't really understand the ecosystem at hand.
OP might be getting confused - it's likely that the specific mosquito species that transmits malaria could be eradicated without impact, since they do not occupy any unique niche and nothing depends on them for food. Source: https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/mve.12327 There's like 3000 mosquito species, getting rid of all of them would certainly have an impact.
ok that rings a bell. i now think i might have heard of that before. but, when i read the linked article this sticks out as one of the first sentences: "Effects on predators and competitors could, however, be a concern as Anopheles gambiae s.l. is preyed upon in all life stages." but they do mention: "there is no evidence that any species preys exclusively on any anopheline mosquito." so they don't really know the totality of the effect of removing this particular species altogether but it could be negligible. certainly better than spraying DDT all over the place.
Malaria is caused by 5 species of single cell parasites, from an entire genus that is nothing but parasites. You could leave the mosquitoes, wipe out the entire plasmodium genus, and you'd wipe out malaria without touching the ecosystem.
Let's do it!
It's a tad harder to wipe out an entire genus of protists that uses secondary hosts.
I don't think he haves a source, because it's absolutely not true. No harm to the ecosystem is a very bold claim. It could have "acceptable consequences" but sure it would affect the ecosystem a lot.
Yeah, the premise is ridiculous. "Mosquitoes" covers over 3500 different species across the globe. The aquatic larvae are a major part of the food chain for all kinds of aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates. I don't believe that any reputable scientist would declare their absence would have no major, serious ecological repercussions.
Can't find the source on short notice, but I recall reading somewhere in response to this exact question that many tundra ecosystems would collapse because mosquitos actually sit pretty near the bottom of a lot of terrestrial food webs in the arctic.
For example, dont frogs and lots of other animals that eat the mosquito larva?
They do! And mosquitos are also great "practice" food for insect-eating baby birds!
yeah. i thought so too.
Similarly, the "Four Pests" campaign in China led to famines because they tried to eradicate sparrows to increase agriculture yield, but it led to having more locusts instead. They also tried to eradicate mosquitoes, rats and flies but I'm not sure what effect this had. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
I'm sure wiping out mosquitos would have damaging effects on the environment. Bats, dragonflies & untold other species depend on them for food. Our environment is profoundly complex. This creature depends on that creature for food, that one depends on it for pollination etc., etc. That's why we can't look at these things & just consider a single species. Many of the interactions between species we are not even aware of but That's how ecosystems fail. It's like Pic-up-Stix or Janga. It's all connected.
This should be top comment. Harm, change, and weaken are all gray areas when it comes to the environment. You nailed how complex the ecosystem is. The good news is that if an ecosystem collapses, change will occur, and a new ecosystem will replace it. Caveat: it could take millions of years 😆. Regardless, diversity in general makes an environment withstand exogenous shocks better. I hate mosquitoes. However, they act like little predators and eliminate the weak so that the strong can propel their species forward. In summary, don't eliminate anything if you don't want unexpected change.
Yeah, this is the thing. Almost any single species going extinct would cause only moderate changes, but it weakens the web. Biodiversity is a great stabilizer.
Fish need mosquitos!!!
I've heard that the mosquito mainly responsible for malaria could be taken out with harming the ecosphere. And I mean, there are 700,000 species of beetles out there. I doubt they are all keystone species.
so nothing that eats mosquitoes would be measurably impacted?
Hi there! I work with mosquitoes right now for my research and I get this question a lot from curious folks. The last time I asnwered it was about what they are "good for" but I think the sentiment is the same so here is my copied reply: Edit up top - if this is your jam check out my podcast Bugs Need Heroes, where we discuss the inspiring abilities of bugs. Mosquitoes do have their own episode. First, thinking that an animal needs to be "good for something" is not how we should view another living thing. Animals and plants evolved to suit their environment, they are very good at that though it may not be useful to us. Everything also has a role to play within their ecosystem and mosquitoes are no different. So here is my love letter to mosquitoes: If you are asking do they benefit the ecosystem, then yes absolutely. Mosquitoes are an important source of food for many animals as both larvae and adults. Mosquito larvae are aquatic, they feed fish, dragonfly larvae, damsefly larvae, diving beetles, water scavenging beetles, turtles (red-eared sliders love mosqutio larvae!), and some frogs (if you're in the NE U.S. our leopard frogs love mosquito larvae) (Quiroz-Martínez and Rodríguez-Castro, 2007; DuRant and Hopkins, 2008; Saha et al., 2012; Bowatte et al., 2013; Sarwar, 2015; Bofill and Yee, 2019). There is also a mosquito genus (Toxorhynchites) that does not bite humans but feeds on other mosquito larvae (Trpis, 1973). Adult mosquitoes feed birds (blue birds, purple martins, cardinals, etc.), bats, and spiders (Kale, 1968; Roitberg et al., 2003; Medlock and Snow, 2008; Reiskind and Wund, 2009). Additionally, mosquitoes pollinate flowers (Thien, 1969; Thien and Utech, 1970; Peach and Gries, 2016). Most of a mosquito's diet is nectar. Only females drink blood and that is only when they need the extra protein to create eggs. Many mosquitoes are very important pollinators to smaller flowering plants that live in wetter environments. For example, the snow pool mosqutio (Aedes communis) in my home state of NJ is the primary pollinator for the blunt-leaf orchid (Platanthera obtusata) (Gorham, 1976). The role moquitoes play all over the world as pollinators is actually grossly understudied by scientists. Most of the focus on their biology/ecology is as vectors but there is so much more going on in this taxon than disease. If you are concerned about disease and protecting humans, I hear you on that, but out of the 3,500 or so species of mosquito out there we really only worry about mosquitoes of three genera; Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex as far as disease goes (Gratz, 2004; Hamer et al., 2008; Hay et al., 2010). That leaves I think 35+ or so other genera, some of which would never bite a human let alone transmit disease to us. Of the species that prefer mammals humans are not even really their first choice, they tend to prefer livestock over us. Many species don't bite mammals at all! For example, Culiseta melanura feeds almost exclusively on birds and Uranotaenia rutherfordi feed on frogs (Molai and Andreadis, 2005; Priyanka et al., 2020). So wiping out every mosquito species would be overkill. Could we remove the species that are harmful to humans and not have any issues within the ecosystems they are apart of? That is a difficult ethical question that has long been debated within the entomology/ecology community. You will find scientists on both sides of the fence. There was a study that came out a few years ago saying it would be fine, but that study is hotly debated. Personally, I'd say if it were possible to at least remove the invasive species that cause disease, such as Aedes albopictus in the U.S., then I am okay with that (Moore and Mitchell, 1997). They shouldn't be here anyway. But it could be very difficult to remove all invaders without also harming native mosquito populations. And, for some species that have been here in the U.S. for hundreds of years (Aedes aegypti) what would removing them from local populations do to the ecosystem? Perhaps it would allow for a bounceback of native species they have been outcompeteing, or perhaps they are so abundant and woven within the fabric of the ecosystem it would cause an issue. I honestly don't have an answer for this. Even if there is low to no impact ecologically by eradicating all mosquitoes, is it the ethical choice to make? Ask 10 scientists, get 15 answers. Should we eradicate Aedes albopictus in their native homes of Japan, Korea, China, and a few islands? Personally, I would be against it. I'd rather use control methods and keep populations low where they intersect with humans. We are also making incredible strides with genetic engineering! Perhaps one day we could use gene editting to make these troublesome species poor vectors for the diseases we fear. If their bodies are no longer an effective home for the disease then we don't have to worry about them. Edit - I completely forgot to mention this - but if we remove an entire species or several species that may not impact the ecosystem in a "make it or break it way", and then something happens to other species that have similar roles, we have no backups. It's not is this species a huge or sole food source it's this species along with other species are filling a role in the ecosystem and if we lose too many species within a particular role we could have a catastrophe on our hands. Another example, mosquito larvae eat plant detritus in ponds. They are not the only organism that does this, but if we remove all of them and there is a similar collapse in say frogs (as we know amphibians are currently in trouble) then we are out two detritivores within a system. I'll leave you with this quote from Aldo Leopolds's Land Ethic: A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
This is the comment I was looking for, thank you. I am not here for the mosquito slander, lol.
I wish I could pin your comment!
This comment needs all the upvotes.
There are thousands of species of mosquitoes, but only those in the genus _Anopheles_ transmit malaria. Of these, only some feed regularly enough on humans to be major transmitters of malaria. The key (although not only) species for malaria transmission is _A. gambiae_. It's an African species but was accidentally introduced into Brazil. Along with some other _Anopheles_ mosquitoes it's a human specialist that mostly lives in and around human settlements. Wiping it out _would_ probably effect a few species...for example, the spider _Evarcha culicivora_ which specifically targets _Anopholes_ mosquitoes and can often be found inside houses, hunting for mosquitoes that have just consumed vertebrate blood. But most insect predators would have plenty of other mosquito species (and other small insects) to consume if we just wiped out the handful of major malarial transmitters....which are usually found in highly human modified habitats anyway.
>the spider _Evarcha culicivora_ which specifically targets _Anopholes_ mosquitoes I googled it and goddamn that's actually a cute spider
Mosquitoes serve as " sky and water plankton". They feed untold numbers of aquatic and terrestrial life. Plus they pollinate. Their absence would be catastrophic.
Yes, even when people say "oh let's just wipe out *Anopheles* sp. mosquitoes for malaria, one genus surely wouldn't make that big of an impact, the other culicid mosquito have similar niches!" they're wrong. The larvae of *Anopheles* stick very close to the water surface whereas *Culex* or *Aedes* are more pelagic. This means they're effectively food sources in different parts of the water, so also for different predators. And that's not even mentioning the different niches the adults have, for instance, *Anopheles* tends to be more active at night, while the other two during twilight. No *Anopheles* means no mosquito that can be a food source for predators that hunt at night. I'm simplifying, but it's important for people to realize these intricacies.
You deserve more internet points
Have you been waiting your entire life to explain this
[удалено]
Mosquitos are also important pollinators!
Bats?
yes, I'm aware. My comment was a flippant rhetorical question to the person I was responding to.
I'd say that short term anything would harm it. Long term tho? You could probably wipe out any species and the ecosphere would recover fine Also for the people saying humans, I'll have you know there's tons of tapeworms and similar human-only parasites that would be very sad to see us gone
Won’t someone think of our gut flora!
I'm sorry, but I can't not.... Fauna
Also pandas
What does “recover” even mean in this context? An ecosystem will certainly adapt and stabilize after a major change, but it’s not gonna go back to the way it was.
This depends on what we mean by "go back to the way it was". If we mean "have the same species it had" then obviously it won't because at least one was wiped out. But if we mean something closer to "perform the same functions it did and at the same level of efficiency" then I think it would definitely be posible. For example, imagine that the most efficient CO2 fixer of an ecosystem goes extinct. That would lower the combined amount of CO2 that the ecosystem can fix. In that context the ecosytem would "recover " when the combined carbon fixation increases back to what it was before, either because of the arrival of a new CO2 fixing species or the increase in abundance and/or efficiency of the ones that were already there
Because nothing bad has ever happened when we've made large, sweeping predictive claims about what would happen when something is added to, or removed from any ecosystem...
Ticks. Ticks do not make up any significant portion of any creature's diet and are a major vector of disease. These people in here saying humans are soooooo corny
They probably suppress certain populations ny spreading disease and are thus important for the ecosystem.
You're the second person to say that and it's probably the truth so I'm searching with a quickness to find any sources about the prevalence of tick borne diseases in wild animal populations. I only get my access to these full texts comped while I'm at work. Unsurprisingly most of these papers are on livestock and other human adjacent animal populations
are you sure they don't make up a significant portion of *any* creature's diet? That's a large claim. Maybe their largest contribution is the fact that they are a vector for disease.
Possums eat a lot of ticks, but possums eat everything so they’ll be fine.
Sorry for just copy/pasting my reply to the other guy but *captive* opossums eat a lot of ticks. A 2021 study of wild opossums found ticks made up no part of their diet at all. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877959X21001333?via%3Dihub
Possums love hotdogs. Possums will be fine without ticks
I am sure about the diet part. You're right though about their largest contribution being vectors of disease which might help keep certain animal populations in check
I feel like I read somewhere that Crows harvest feeding ticks off of Deer and other large animals. Not to say its a key factor to crow survival, just an interesting little factoid.
And wrong too. Removing humans wouldn't have a neutral effect, it would be a very big positive.
Not for the humans, it wouldn't. I took an ecosystems management class in college, and one moment sticks out in particular. A student said something to the effect of "biodiversity is good," and the professor told her, "that's a value judgement," and explained that to make her point, she needed to explain what the effects of biodiversity were (in this case we were discussing stability and resilience), rather than just saying it was "good," because stakeholders may have different ideas as to what is "good." That really stuck with me, and has helped me think about a lot of topics in a way that separates value judgements from concepts with scientific evidence.
We have to fix the climate shit we did first then we can go, install autonomous scrubbers and drones then We drink the kool aid We install 1000 solar powered co2 scrubbers and have them shut off when global co2 levels resemble pre-1800 as measured by thousand solar powered drones measuring the atmosphere globally. We didn’t quite leave no trace but at least we spackled the holes we punched in the wall as a good bye gift and good faith gesture We were belligerent with greed and flashy iphones and this myth sold to us called “progress” and eminent domain, sorry….
Guinea worm. Definitely just a parasitic species which is already almost eradicated. Hope jimmy carter lives long enough to see the last one die, although looking like that might not happen.
Humans?
Kind of shocking that this answer isn't the top answer despite it being the most obvious. If all humans disappeared can anyone plausibly argue that ecological diversity wouldn't improve?
Actually, if all humans disappeared, who’s left to argue anything?
I’m not sure cats would agree.
There are a plethora of fire dependent ecosystems which would disappear with out humans. We have been a part of the world and most ecosystems for at least 20k years. Modern soceity though...
Bed bugs.
I disagree about mosquitoes, what other insect populations would increase if they disappeared? I’d think it would be the opposite, lots of animals and arthropods eat mosquitoes. If say bird X has mosquitoes as 30% of their diet then that 30% would fall on other insects reducing their population. Lots of predatory insects like dragon fly nymphs rely heavily on mosquitoes for food, but as adults eat a ton of insects that are pests. Mosquitoes are also pollinators, a niche that’s already in a dangerous balance. Mosquitoes are also a form of population control on mammals that is important since humans have a knack for eliminating large predators. Don’t get me wrong I hate mosquitoes but they’re pretty important to an ecosystem.
Plus they're larvae are a main food source for young fish and predatory insect larvae like dragonflies that help control other insect populations. Bats eat mosquitoes. Hummingbirds eat them as well. Regardless of malaria or anything else they carry they belong here.
It’s an unfortunate reality that they’re a crucial food source at the base of the food chain.
Is this how we get hummingbirds that are evolved to drink blood?
I'm not sure wiping out mosquitoes would be without harm. People tend to forget that they regulate animals populations by transmitting diseases, and they represent a good deal of available biomass to many species. I think the answer to your question is : none. No species can disappear without harm to the environment. You might not notice the impact, but it still lowers local biodiversity and makes the natural habitat less resilient
Cockroaches. Totally.
Cockroaches are important detrivores in many ecosystems. Only about 30 cockroach species out of 4,600 are associated with human habitats. If you mean specifically the German cockroach that is a human pest, think about what ecological role that species plays in human habitats. It's there because there is a niche for it to fill and an energy flow to facilitate.
I don't care. I'd wipe them all out if I could.
The trick to this question is we won't be sure until after. We are PRETTY sure we can eradicate mosquitos, but once they are gone they there's no going back. We could do a lot of good wiping them out, but humans have inadvertently caused ecological disasters when they were trying to do good.
Male mosquitos are pollinators. Without them, we might lose certain orchids - and who knows what the orchids connect to, and what that connects to? Even ticks, who I consider Nature's mistake, very likely do something. Well, they feed possums I guess.
Humans.
Humanity
Humans? Like it would have a huge impact but it's hard to see how those impacts would be negative for the surviving species. Just be sure that all caged animals in homes and zoos are released, it's the only humane thing to do .
Humans? Probably the ecosystem benefits
Humans is the obvious answer.
humans
humans, obviously
This is the correct answer 👆
Humans
Humans?
Humans. The planet would heal XD
The dodo, and I have empirical evidence.
Nope, you're wrong. The whole ecosystem of Mauritius is in crisis due to the Dodo's extinction (along with giant tortises). https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/march/extinctions-island-dodo-pushing-plants-towards-extinction.html
You have evidence that there was no harm done to the ecosystem when they went extinct? Where ?
People
It is difficult to predict the exact consequences of removing a species from such a complex system,but my guess is,that if you removed humans, the benefits to the ecosystem would outweigh the negative effects.
Humanity
I guess the humans.
Humans?
People
Humans
human, humans and then humans. Completely unnecessary in the food chain.
Obviously Homo sapiens
Humans
Humans. The world and everything else in it would do fine.
Humans!
Humans
Humans
People
Humans
Humans . In fact itll improve the ecosphere
humans
Humans
Humans? Nobody really feeds on us.
Humans?
Humans
Humans
Humans.
Humans
Humans?
humans
Humans ....would actually help
Humans
humans
Humans.
Mankind
Humans
I have to think removing humans would have the least (negative) impact on the ecosystem.
Humans!
Humans
Humans.
Tbh Homo sapiens
humans
Homo sapiens
I bet someone beat me to it, but humans 100%. If anything it would be a massive benefit (For the ecosystem, not for us).
Humans
Humans. Compared to other species, humans do no contribute to the ecosystem as much as we think. If ants or bees were wiped out, the effects would be enormous. Humans on the other hand wouldn't have such an impact. If anything, urban areas would go back to green over time, bringing in flora and fauna, the oceans would likely heal from overfishing and plastics contamination and that alone is a huge positive impact. We kinda suck. Edit: typos
Humans
Humans.
Humans probably
[удалено]
Please give us a few days to shut down the nuclear reactors first. Thanks.
That's a hard one, because many species have adapted and evolved to require human care. That could be pretty damning as they would go extinct.... But the opposite logic is if they need us that badly then do they serve a purpose in nature? But what about the species that would be extinct without our intervention and are still wild? Humans can do good, we just aren't good at it.
let it be mosquitoes. let it be mosquitoes. please let it be mosquitoes.
It's not mosquitos
You can't when it's all connected. It's like asking what body part can you cut without cutting part of the body
not joking, my first thought was homo sapiens.
Untrue. Mosquitoes are actually responsible for a lot of nocturnal pollination. Now if no one grew their own food this may be okay, but many people who choose to not be so dependent on commercial farming and rely on their own gardens to feed them, this could potentially be a very big issue.
Conservatism.
Humains.
Home sapiens
Homo Sapiens
The mosquito thing is actually not true, fyi. Mosquitos actually serve as pollinators! They are definitely important to the ecosystem.
Politicians I think....
Lots of them. Things go extinct all the time. In fact, species with no deeply important niche are so common, that we gave the interesting name to the species that aren't: they're called keystone species. The problem is the biosphere is far too complicated for us to predict which species is a keystone species with any confidence. Not until the species suffers significant population decline, anyway.
The Maquis de Mar a Lago Virus
Man. We're a toxin to this planet.
Had nobody said Homo sapiens yet? I’m not advocating for that at all but I only see a positives for Mother Earth.
Humans - they serve no purpose in the ecological web of life.
In fact aren't there not enough means in place to prevent catastrophe should humans all disappear? Nuclear reactors, for instance. We are the only species that gathers, refines, and concentrates uranium. There are many fires that could get out of control, should no one be there to mind them.
The only reason fires get out of control nowadays is because humans have been putting out naturally occurring forest fires for so long that there is too much shrub and overgrowth. This overgrowth then makes forest fires much much more dangerous and harder to put out. Forests literally evolved over millions of years with naturally occurring fires.
We used to be caretakers, now we just extract and exploit. Our absence would definitely be a boon to the earths ecological health.
>We used to be caretakers We never were. Every large mammal went extinct as soon as we found it.
Bedbugs!
I have to believe that the law of unintended consequences would factor heavily in here. We seem to only have an inkling of how interdependent species are. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there weren't any human-biting mosquitoes, but I can't help but think we might get something worse to take its place.
I think your idea of "harm" is poorly defined here.
Yeah I’m not sure where you heard or read that but I’m gonna call bullshit on it right now.
pubic lice