Conversation

I think the first time I personally noticed that something was off with the cognitive metaphors that frame invasive species is when I realised the glee people have when talking about the horrors of kudzu in North America, vs. the absolute silence on the horrors of roses (an invasive species that has damaged old-growth high-biodiversity forests more than kudzu can dream).

it was pretty obvious for me why roses (< Middle English roose < Latin rosa) were so beloved while kudzu (< japanese 葛くず < くづ) so reviled, when both are equally damaging introduced species.

I didn't quite realise how much the metaphor of foreign invasion can tilt not just the general public perception but actual conservation efforts. one example that Clare gives in the interview is that the government has dismissed the Stop Cop City movement by claiming the forest they're sitting is "all invasive species, I would barely call it a forest at all". it's very convenient to be able to call nature disposable when you're in the business of killing.

the other example, the one that motivated the author herself, was watching a guy being sad about having to kill barred owls to save the spotted owl. it's clear this was against this guy's every instinct, but he was like what can we do, they're invasive, the spotted owl is dying. well it turns out the spotted owl was dying due to habitat destruction by human commercial developments, not due to invasion of barred owls, who were just like, able to occupy the damaged niches left. mass killings are underway with no benefit so far seen to spotted owls—but plenty of benefit to the timber industry, who gets to log deeper while blaming some other species.

I think there's a sort of "argument by hard decision" appeal to destructive interventions. it's the opposite of the fallacy of the just world; call it the fallacy of the fucked up world. it's a fucked up world, so it stands to reason that killing a bunch of stuff in the name of preservation must be what we're supposed to do. we're hard men, and we have to make the hard decisions. shed a manly tear and tragically shoot the bird behind the barn. but uh, do we actually have to do that. have we clearly demonstrated that this intervention will in fact help in any substantial way. the evidence is too often very unconvincing—and the remedy worse than the ailment.

like no one is denying that human-spread species have often highly damaged imported environment—I personally grew up watching the North America pinus monoculture escaping their papermaking factory-woods and eating away my native Atlantic jungle, like a wave of acidic pine needles washing over everything—or even that sometimes it's good to intervene destructively. but framing this as if the species are the hated migrant invaders out-breeding the poor sacred natives who must be protected at all costs sets things up so that the actual causes of invasives spreading in the first place—pesticides, monocultures, paper industry, logging etc.—remain off-camera. thus, "scapegoat".

Public

Notices

Feeds