Stardate 20020206.1239

(On Screen): In the 1980's, the world bent its might to elimination of a great scourge: smallpox. By the dint of massive application of technology (vaccination) it was eliminated, and there hasn't been a case of smallpox anywhere in the world for at least ten years. The world heaves a sigh of relief.

But there are many other things out there we would eliminate if we possibly could. The Anopheles mosquito is a friendly beast and loves to share: among its many gifts to humans are Yellow Fever and Malaria. Would we eliminate the Anopheles mosquito if we were capable of doing so? I think we would, and in the next fifty years we'll have the ability to do that. (A disease tailored to specifically attack and kill just that particular species would do it; an artificial plague created in the laboratory.) I think that no-one in Africa would mourn the destruction of the Tsetse fly.

And just ask Texans whether they would like to wipe out fire ants. (Go ahead, just ask them.) Or ask almost anyone about cockroaches. Or Kudzu.

So why so much celebration about the potential return of the Golden Hoverfly? It strikes me that there is a double standard here: it's not harmful to humans, and it is esthetically pleasing to our eyes. Therefore it is worth preserving. Doesn't smallpox also have a right to live?

OK, I'm being partly facetious here. But not totally: on what basis do we decide that one species is critical and important and worth screwing humans over to save, while another we decide is harmful vermin that we will actively try to wipe out?