Eradication of Invasive Species: A Moral Perspective

1. Eradication of Invasive Species:A Moral Perspective

2. An invasive species is “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health “ - USDA Often introduced by humans (accidentally or intentionally)

3. European Starling • 80 individuals released in New York, 1890 • Found in Florida by 1918 • Now widespread throughout the U.S.

4. European Starling Travel in large flocks  problems with air traffic Eat lots of grains  Crop damage and invertebrates Decreased resources for native species May transmit diseases to livestock and humans

5. European Starling Very aggressive in obtaining nest sites Threat to native cavity-nesting species

6. Invasive Species as a Threat to Biodiversity Estimated to have contributed to nearly half of the extinctions in the last 500 years Especially problematic on islands: Native species evolved with few competitors and predators Few predators already there to control alien species In Hawaii, one half of the endemic bird species have gone extinct

7. So, what should we do? When it comes to invasive species, the theory we should follow is Ecocentrism.

8. Ecocentrism Subset of environmental ethics, which studies “the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its nonhuman contents” Holmes Rolston III: argues that individual life has intrinsic value (biocentric) species and ecosystems also have intrinsic value (ecocentric)

9. Ecocentrism and Invasive Species Ecocentrism sees value in species and ecosystems Invasive species threaten the health of native species and ecosystems Therefore, ecocentrists would argue for the eradication of invasive species

10. Eradication Four main categories: Physical or mechanical control (capturing and removing) Chemical control (poison) Cultural management (manipulation to make the environment less hospitable) Biological controls (purposeful use of predators, parasites, pathogens) All result in the death of individuals of the invasive species

11. Animal Rights Counterargument • Tom Regan: • All individuals are subjects of a life, should be viewed as means instead of ends • Therefore… • Individuals of invasive species are still subjects of a life • They care what happens to themselves • They should not be killed as a means of increasing biodiversity • It is in violation of their rights for us to kill them, even to help other species

12. Ecocentric Rebuttal Regan values individuals because they are centers of life. But life is not contained within one individual; rather, it is dynamic: It is passed from generation to generation within a species It also flows from individual to individual of different species in an ecosystem (i.e. predation)

13. Ecocentric Rebuttal A consistent respect for life means ascribing value to species and ecosystems as well as individuals. If individuals have intrinsic value, shouldn’t a collection of individuals that wish to persist have even greater value? Therefore, while it is bad to end the lives of individuals of invasive species, it is worse to allow entire species or ecosystems to be extinguished. >

14. Conclusion Invasive species are a driving force behind the decline of many species and ecosystems today. We should follow the Ecocentric Theory of Environmental Ethics to decide what to do about invasive species. Based on the Ecocentric Theory, invasive species should be eradicated. Animal Rights advocates would oppose the killing of invasive species members, but Ecocentrists would counter that species and ecosystems have even greater intrinsic value than individuals.

15. Sources • Invasivespeciesinfo.org • Invasion.si.edu • http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw300 • https://www.cbd.int/island/invasive.shtml • http://home.sandiego.edu/~kaufmann/hnrs379/Ecocentrism_SAGE.pdf • Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights” • Rolston III, Holmes. “Environmental Ethics”