Mosquito Militancy

Growing up in the Midwest, I constantly dealt with the onslaught of mosquitoes in the summer. They were, however, no more than a pest, as we engaged in slapping them away and suffered at best, little itchy bumps on our skin for a day or so. When I moved to Virginia, a few decades ago, I feared that mosquitoes would be a greater nuisance down here, but was relieved to find fewer of those pesky critters than I had expected.

My experience with these biting insects has been nothing, however, compared to most of humanity's battles. A recent article in the New Yorker (“Buzz Off,” by Brooke Jarvis) chronicles the horrors that mosquitoes have brought to humans. In fact, some researchers have estimated that over 50 billion humans have died from mosquito attacks—about half of all people who ever were born! Think about that: more deaths from a tiny insect than all the wars we've ever engaged in.

Mosquitoes are very efficient vectors of disease. They bite a person or animal infected with various maladies, ingest the harmful bacteria, and then pass them on. In the deep past, mosquitoes did their greatest damage when people traveled from one region to another—bringing the diseases with them. That's still true today, but travel by airplane is ever so much farther and faster.

The victors of many past wars were determined by diseases carried by these insects. Roman army advances on the English island were halted by strains of malaria native to Scotland. As a result, Rome set its northern frontier at Hadrian's Wall—roughly the border between Scotland and England today. Hannibal's troops and Genghis Khan's forces were stymied by the mosquito. Napoleon's army in Haiti was decimated by yellow fever.

A late major 17^th century major attempt by Scottish colonists to settle in Panama, in order to control traffic between the Pacific and Atlantic, was defeated by yellow fever and malaria. As a result, a debilitated Scotland yielded to England, to forge Great Britain. Prehistoric Africa was an ideal breeding ground for malaria (it still is), resulting in an evolutionary adaptation in Africans' red blood cells: acquiring a sickle shape that resisted the disease.

For millennia people did not understand that the mosquito—giving a free ride to malaria bacteria—was the cause of diseases. Since it was encountered primarily in warm, wet climes, it was thought to be caused by something in the stinky air of marshlands. Thus the Italian term mala aria: “bad air.”

When Columbus sailed to America, the mosquitoes there carried no diseases, but they quickly began transporting the maladies brought by the Europeans. Within a short time, some 95% of American Indians, which had previously numbered some 100 million souls, succumbed to the new diseases. As invading Europeans pushed into the interior of the New World, they came to believe that the continent was largely uninhabited. It became their “Manifest Destiny” to occupy the land.

Centuries later we continue to struggle against malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. Despite the insecticides our technology has created, the mosquito evolves and adapts new forms of resistance. Now global warming brings new dangers, as these insects move north into new territory. The arms race continues. It raises the question: Are mosquitoes our worst enemy ever, or are we ourselves?

Divergent Doctrines

China experienced a turbulent epoch, some 2500 years ago, during what is called the Warring States Period. For two to three centuries following the previous collapse of a steadfast and ethical rule—the Zhou (pronounced “Jo”) Dynasty—chaos governed, as numerous small states that had once been allied under the Zhou began to fight among themselves.

For the Chinese population, the Warring States Period was very disturbing, because their culture had always valued collective cooperation, but now their civilization seemed to be disintegrating. Those were distressing times.

Over a period of a couple of centuries during that warring period, a number of teachers and philosophers came to the fore and offered their analyses of the plight, along with their counsel about how to get things back on track and foster once again a moral society that valued unity. Out of this struggle came the teachings of several Chinese sages—the most famous today being Confucius.

As the conflicts wore on, without peace, other philosophers came into prominence and offered their ideas for how to get back on track. Some of them were Mencius, Mozi, Lauzi, Zhunzi, Zhuangzu, Zon Yau, Sunzi, and Han Fei. Many of them formed their own school, whose students later carried on the doctrines of the masters. This process was very similar to the assorted philosophical schools of ancient Greece—and in fact, at about the same time period.

Coming from divergent backgrounds and at different times during the Warring States Period, the teachings of the various philosophers often clashed. Had one of them—say Confucius—put forth a suggestion early on, which ended the ongoing conflicts, we may never have had the alternative and sundry ideas the other teachers offered. As a result, we have a wide variety of rich philosophical doctrines—each of which conflicts with and/or supplements the others in various ways.

I will focus here on two of these sages, Mencius and Zhunzi, who seem to have reached diametrically opposed conclusions on human nature. As the Warring States conflicts persisted, many people began to wonder about the essential qualities of human nature, and whether those qualities are moral or not. The core question: Is human nature good or bad? Are we basically virtuous or harmful creatures? Are we born as benign beings or as evil individuals? Thus, if the first case is true, do we try to encourage and promote our natural goodness or, in second case, purge ourselves of our wickedness?

Mencius took the position that we are inherently good—we're born innocent and our job is to nurture those sprouts of goodness, in order to come to realize our full potential as honorable people. Zhunzi took the opposite view: that human nature is basically bad—we're born as pernicious people and our job is to learn to purge ourselves of this baleful behavior. Life is a constant struggle to overcome that devilish trait of ours, Zhunzi maintained.

It's fascinating that both Mencius and Zhunzi, although they seem to be diametrically opposed, considered themselves to be pupils of Confucius. They both agreed that Chinese society must get back on the track of peace and order, but viewed humans as starting from opposing places. I won't try here to delve any deeper into the teachings of these two sages or explain their divergent doctrines. I'm sure that interminable debates could chew on this issue and never reach an agreed explanation, since the topic remains relevant and controversial, 2500 years later.

This kind of contention between scholars is not unique to Chinese philosophy. Western theologians have similarly disagreed. For example, within Christianity there is an analogous type of disagreement—between the Catholic doctrine of original sin and the Quaker concept of “that of God” within every person.

This question of the basic quality of human nature is a philosophical query—one that is as relevant today as it was three millennia ago. I find it fascinating that most all questions of science—unlike philosophy—get slowly, step-by-step, answered. Is the Earth at the center of the universe or not? Is there a “cure” for cancer? We may not know the answers at any given point in time, but the inevitable advancement of scientific knowledge will most likely one day offer an answer. Philosophical questions, however, often have no final answer. Are we innately good or bad? Tune in next century for the ongoing debate.

Ghost Cricket

I found this cricket caught in a spider web and released it. Click to enlarge.