Or: insult to injury in the ongoing mass extinction. This is fighting fire with fire.

The reason that cliché exists is because it is, indeed, sometimes appropriate to fight fire with fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair

The precautionary principle is great until it gets a bunch of people killed, which is what happens when we let species like mosquitoes live.

For the record it also makes me sick when people apply that same logic in the reverse direction, to humans.

That sometimes you have to kill people to stop people from killing people?

Does that mean you disapprove of the allies fighting WW2 germany by killing their soldiers? We should have attempted to use only non lethal weapons? Or should have just let them commit genocide?

(I know, godwin's law, but it's a relevant uncontroversial example here).

No, the logic that an appropriate solution to a problem is to intentionally eradicate an entire species (at the risk of unintentionally eradicating several more).

That logic makes me sick.

And what makes anyone think that malaria won't find some other vector that's much harder to control?

Oh, I see, you're attaching value to species instead of individuals with your statement.

I can understand your point of view, I disagree I think just because I have different base moral values here. I attach value to the existence of complex life, but not to individual species (with the possible exception of humans).

If Malaria is going to find a better vector, it will do that anyways. It's more likely to do that while there is more of it (more chances to mutate correctly) so to minimize the risk of that happening one should do their best at killing it off.

So you don't agree that eradicating smallpox, for instance, was a good idea?

The question is how they eradicated smallpox?

IIRC they didn't genetically modify humans to be sterile to prevent the spread of the virus, could be wrong though...