Summary
This philosophical paper argues that the term “invasive species” should be removed from scientific and public discourse. According to the author, the term has villainized animals who in fact have no malicious intentions, and this has resulted in ‘othering’ of certain species and sanctioning of hunting and human violence against them. The author argues that unjustified anthropocentrism (human-centered values) has created a false conception of where species should be placed. Furthermore, this anthropocentrism has led many to ignore the harm that humans have caused to animals in favor of scapegoating non-native animal species. The author concludes that non-native species can often have many benefits when properly adapted into an environment, and the “invasive” term overlooks this value.
This article calls for an end to the use of the term ‘invasive species’, both in the scientific and public discourse on wildlife conservation. There are two broad reasons for this: the first problem with the invasive species narrative is that this demonisation of ‘invasives’ is morally wrong, particularly because it usually results in the unjust killing of the animals in question. Following on from this, the second problem is that the narrative is also incoherent, both from scientific and philosophical perspectives. At the heart of both of these issues is the problem that the invasive species narrative oversimplifies what are in fact very complex biological processes. As a result, the policies carried out with the stated aim of ‘controlling’ these animals are often unethical. In light of the current global species decline, this article asserts that the way we think and talk about these animals should be changed and the term ‘invasive species’ should be discontinued, in the hope that this leads to changes in practice.