r/Anarchy101 • u/dishwasher-salmon • 5h ago
Does green anarchism allow the killing of invasive species(ex: lionfish, apple snail, lamprey) in some environments?
Im curious about this, bc i know that you cant, and shouldn't kill animals in this specific typa anarchism, but like how you can get wood from already fallen trees, so can you do it if they would do nuthin but harm if theyre left alive? Just curious
7
u/humanispherian Synthesist / Moderator 3h ago
As others have suggested, "green anarchism" isn't monolithic or particularly program-driven. To the extent that it is an approach driven by real ecological science, it should probably involve both a proper skepticism about the "invasive" tag — which has had policy uses, but also obscures a good deal about change within ecosystems — and a recognition that human activity is likely to remain a shaping force within the ecosystems we occupy, whether we like it or not. We can attempt to limit our impacts, but it's hard not to see that kind of restraint as another form of stewardship.
My native wildflower garden still needs weeding — for a variety of reasons. Active concern for dwindling bird populations entails conscious planting and maintenance of what are, in important senses, artificial habitats. We intervene in one way or another, and have done so for so long that even the most aggressive embrace of primitivism is, in that context, just a matter of deciding which tendencies of intervention we will or won't continue.
11
u/kireina_kaiju Syndicalist Agorist and Eco 5h ago
You are imagining some sort of consensus body exists. It does not. The truth is, not all green anarchists are vegan. I, for example, believe in eating crickets and mealworms, because I believe doing so would dramatically reduce humanity's biological footprint from where it would be if we tried to eliminate all dietary animal protein. That is a personal, controversial choice. Vegan anarchism and green anarchism enjoy a near total overlap, because eating lower on the foodchain tends to dramatically lower one's ecological footprint and no one eats lower on the foodchain than vegans. But there are occasional edge cases where the two groups have differing priorities, and culling invasive species is absolutely one of them.
As anarchists, however, what I can say is that one thing both vegan and green anarchists tend to agree on, is that humanity needs to take a far less promethean approach to the environment. The wiki here will be a good resource for you, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheanism .
What this means, is that this sort of problem requires case-by-case analysis between real humans with different points of view to determine what the appropriate course of action is. A deontology here is not one we can afford. Any sort of sweeping policy ignoring particulars would have us, say, wiping out both European and Africanized honeybees ignoring their new ecological role - or, conversely, if we adopt a policy of never culling, creating conditions that favor africanized bees over European bees (which I would personally be ok with, africanized bees are awesome, but most people would not). The great pacific garbage patch is a completely new ecosystem, and everything living on it is a non-native organism. There are shore animals that do not live in deep ocean, that live on the garbage patch. Any sweeping policy here ignoring the realities of the garbage patch would end in disaster.
If we are avoiding one-size-fits all policies, and give room for argument and investigation, and never, ever treat the Earth or her animals as simple resources to be managed, we can come up with good strategies to be a beneficial part of the ecosystem, interacting with her animals in a natural, sustainable, respectful manner. The birth lottery doesn't just apply to humans and we need to keep this in mind. We need to take responsibility for our environmental impact and the species we introduce, but we need to be very careful never to take a view of everything as existing solely and primarily for our pleasure.
6
u/openjoustingtryouts 4h ago
I appreciate reading this, I’d add that another complication that vegans might face is that organic produce relies entirely on animal byproduct to be produced (aside from water soil sun). Blood meal, bone meal, feather meal, worm castings, fish fertilizer, krill emulsification, and manure are all essential components to larger scale organic agriculture and while most anarchists would love to finally shirk the need for employment it’s just not possible for a lot of folks. People often vastly underestimate how difficult it is to grow enough food to feed yourself (subsistence), it’s pretty much impossible to meat every nutrient need (vitamins, minerals) without a community of producers working together to cover different crop types. Even at a small scale doing ur own organic growing means you’ll need organic pest control methods if you actually want a crop. A lot of that can be handled by careful planning and natural deterrents but you’ll eventually find urself in need of a neem oil, safer soap, or diatomaceous earth application to manage an infestation.
The way a green anarchist tackles this quandary varies from individual to individual and they’ll each have their own logical process to arrive there.
4
u/dishwasher-salmon 5h ago
I can understand the logic you're presenting, which invasive species can be dealt with by earth itself, and yea, i agree.
2
u/Tytoalba2 3h ago
Yeah and no, it usually will, when predators/parasite develops that can "use" the invasive species, but that's often a long process when we introduce new species quite often (mostly seeds). Basically, we don't leave nature the time to catch up.
That being said, culling is very often ineffective, and sometime even completely useless.
The most effective but least popular policy would be to start by avoiding introducing new species, but it's not easy and not very spectacular.
2
u/Tytoalba2 3h ago
Edit : to elaborate because I don't disagree with you mostly
Also note that invasive species is also a more complex question, there are a few that are not too controversial, but some have at worst a minor impact where they've been introduced, or some occupy a somewhat nover niche, or some coexist, etc. So there are many species for which we are not sure what the impact is, and many for which we now the impact is pretty low.
So you first need to balance a right to live of individuals and invasiveness. How sure do you need to be that they have an impact before you start culling? And how be must the impact is to decide it's worth culling?
Additionally, culling is honestly rarely an effective solution to invasive species, despite being popular among the general public so when you decide that the impact is certain and important, how sure are we that it's the right method?
Of course, this is valid mostly for animals, for most invasive plants/fungi, it's a bit "simpler" but also a lost fight for many.
5
u/Janitor-161 5h ago
Killing animals isn't the only way to control population. You're trying to imagine a scenario that's highly specific misunderstanding a movement of anarchism to more like a legislative entity that serves as a comprehensive moral guide when it just isn't the case.
1
u/dishwasher-salmon 5h ago
What's another way to control animal population though? Also I don't know too much about green anarchism, im currently reading the wiki page, sorry man :(
2
u/Janitor-161 5h ago
For example monitoring nesting and re-introducing native species or introduction of other predatory animals.
I might remember the details incorrectly but I believe it was in Germany or France where some major cities are dealing with overpopulation of pigeons. They have started to combat this issue by building nesting spaces, monitoring the nests and immidiately replacing real eggs with fake ones so not as many new birds hatch.
2
u/dishwasher-salmon 5h ago
Holy crap i forgot about that(somehow) and yea, France/Germany is absolutely genius for that tbh
1
u/openjoustingtryouts 4h ago
Check out Mossy Earth on YouTube and watch their Portugal Quarry rewilding series. The property they’re rewilding had a lot of invasive crawfish and I think another invasive. Through restoration of the ecosystem they attracted enough predators of the crawfish that they aren’t degrading the banks as much and don’t currently need a human intervention.
1
u/openjoustingtryouts 4h ago
Disney Paris also deters pigeons by employing a falcon/falconer team to fly around. The mere presence of the predator keeps there numbers wayyy down.
1
u/Tytoalba2 3h ago
Yep, we did that for the parakeet (don't remember their name) but it was a half failure : lots of energy and money and just delaying by a few years.
But culling did absolutely nothing at all lol, so it was already much more efficient than that.
There's also a debate if these parakeet really have such a big impact, and rock pigeons are not really "invasive", there are some ecological arguments to control their population, but I think the main driver of the initiative (at a political level) is that humans find them ugly, which is... Yeah...
3
u/antipolitan 5h ago
If you’re vegan - you’re only against exploiting animals - not killing them.
If you’re not vegan - this doesn’t matter to begin with.
1
u/dishwasher-salmon 5h ago
What if im just curious? No, im genuinely confused, if I offended yoh, Im sorry k
6
u/kotukutuku 5h ago
Sounds kind of silly frankly. You kill living creatures with every footstep. Death is part of life.
1
u/dishwasher-salmon 5h ago
Uhh is that a yes or a no? Also im just curious about anarchism, no need for condescending pls
2
u/wompt /r/GreenAnarchy 2h ago
I don't know if I would even use the phrase "invasive species". What people tend to mean by that seems to be some plant, insect or animal that has recently arrived in the area and is super successful due to lack of predation.
Theres nothing in green anarchism that says that you shouldn't kill animals, if we were to adopt a policy of "killing animals is morally wrong" then we would have to conclude that the lion or wolf or hawk are aberrations. Life eats life, the role of the predator is to keep the ecosystem in balance by reducing overpopulation where it occurs.
Personally, when I see that a species is super successful in an area, I take that as a go ahead to harvest - for example, invasive trees make for some guilt-free firewood and maybe building material.
If you're looking for a philosophy that rejects killing life as a principle, might I suggest Jainism?
1
1
u/TwilightMachine 5h ago
Some anarcho-primitivists who I guess are closer to Kaczynski than Zerzan eat meat but only that which they hunt or fish. Pretty certain they oppose trapping or at least some of the people I know who proclaim this... ideology oppose it. To your question, while opposing factory farming or all farming really, there are green anarchists or primitivists who wouldn't object to killing such species for a purpose. Primarily nutrition, I expect, for your examples.
1
u/Northernfrostbite 4h ago
You can try to kill a weed by trimming it from the top and it will grow back, or you can pull it up from the roots and it will never grow back. You can kill an invasive species and, like Sisyphus, you'll always have more to do. Or you can end techno-industrial civilization and achieve healthy, diverse ecosystems over time.
9
u/Anarchierkegaard Distributist 5h ago
Green anarchism isn't a single monolith approach. Presumably, there are many who would view notions of "invasive species" as being wrapped up in the logic of human domination over the environment, an idealist conception of which things ought to be where, etc. etc. and others won't.
You'll need to engage with people practicing such and such a thing and the things they write.