Top Reddit comment:

Eradicating Malaria is on par with the eradication of Smallpox. He brings up a good point though: Why haven't we done it yet? If we have the technology to do it, why don't we? At what point does it become unethical to not get rid of malaria?

Aside from the amount of resources and carefully planned actions that it would take to make this happen, what are the other barriers? You can argue that Malaria acts as a good population buffer, but that's a tough ethical stance. There's a ridiculous amount of ethical debate on the value of human life and and you invite a ton of rebuttals if you defend an infectious disease only because it keeps overpopulation from occurring.

Overpopulation is a problem, but not nearly as bad of one as 500,000 preventable deaths a year. If you knew that you could prevent 500,000 deaths in offices every year by using a different brand of light bulb, would you do it? That's not a perfect comparison, I know.

I think he said it best. The discussion is way behind the technology in this case. A comprehensive analysis of the situation is needed, preferably from the POV's of biologists, geneticists, and ethical professors as well. I'm not so sure eradicating all mosquitos is the best answer at this point, but eradicating malaria certainly seems like the right thing to do.

500+ Reddit comments:

https://reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/53syyf/how_to_eradicate_one_of_our_deadliest_enemies/

https://reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/53syuq/how_to_eradicate_one_of_our_deadliest_enemies_new/

https://reddit.com/r/videos/comments/53tzut/how_to_eradicate_one_of_our_deadliest_enemies/