The brown tree snake, an invasive species that costs Guam millions and has killed six species of bird to date
Left-wing
news website Vox published an article this week that claimed it was
time to stop demonizing "invasive" species, arguing that the ongoing use
of the term divided life on Earth, including people, between native and
non-native.
In the Sunday piece,
freelance journalist Marina Bolotnikova blamed climate change for the
forced migration of certain species, criticized measures taken by some
governments to terminate those species, likened their treatment to the
experiences of immigrants and suggested the term "invasive" wasn't
appropriate to describe the migrating groups.
"Ecologists
expect climate change to create mass alterations in the habitats of
these 'range-shifting' or 'climate-tracking' species, as they’re
sometimes called, which will reshuffle ecosystems in ways that are hard
to predict. The migrations are critical to species’ ability to survive
hotter temperatures," Bolotnikova wrote, citing instances of dark
unicorn snails migrating from Mexico to California as an example.
Bolotnikova
said that the scientific community largely viewed that sort of habitat
shift as a "good thing," but that governments and the general public
were "less forgiving."
"'Invasive
species' is a concept so ingrained in American consciousness that it’s
taken on a life of its own, coloring the way we judge the health of
ecosystems and neatly dividing life on Earth into native and invasive,"
she wrote.
"For
decades, invasion has been a defining paradigm in environmental policy,
determining what gets done with limited conservation budgets. Species
deemed invasive have often been killed in gruesome ways," she added.
"Even though invasion biologists readily point out that many non-native
species never become problematic, the invasion concept almost by
definition makes scientists skeptical of species moving around."
Bolotnikova
claimed that a growing number of scientists and environmental
philosophers were starting to question if a concept "defined by a
species' geographic origin" could actually capture the "ethical and
ecological complexities of life on a rapidly changing planet."
She
argued that it was "crucial" to get right how to handle continued
disruption of ecosystems in the 21st century, something she said would
become more true as climate change and habitat loss accelerated. She
then detailed arguments by some scientists that species referred to as
"range-shifters" shouldn't be referred to as "invasive," but rather as
"the refugees of climate change that need our assistance."
"Climate
change and the range shifts it’s causing are extraordinary
circumstances. If a species flees a habitat that is burning or melting,
is it ever fair to call it invasive?" Bolotnikova wrote. "Even outside
of a climate context, this tension reflects a more fundamental problem
within the invasive species paradigm. If the label is so stigmatizing
that the only appropriate response feels like extermination, perhaps
something else needs to take its place."
She
later referred to conservationist efforts in North Carolina to prevent
coyotes from mating with endangered red wolves as bearing "uncomfortable
parallels to Western preoccupations with racial purity."
"That’s
why some scientists look askance at the influence of invasion biology
and argue that the field has a baked-in, nativist bias on documenting
negative consequences of introduced species and preserving nature as it
is," she wrote.
"What’s
more, the very notion of 'invasion' draws on a war metaphor, and media
narratives about non-native species are remarkably similar to those
describing enemy armies or immigrants," Bolotnikova added before citing a
news story that referred to armadillos "besieging" North Carolina as
"pests" and "freakish."
"[The
story] also gawked at the animal’s 'booming reproduction rate,' an
allegation that, not coincidentally, is leveled against human migrants,"
she wrote.
The
article drew an amused reaction, with some poking fun at the "woke"
biology at display and disparaging Vox for criticizing a legitimately
scientific phrase as not politically correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment