09-06-2010, 06:54 PM
In the case of many invasive species the issue is not how bad the invasive species is but what impact it has on native species. If mongooses didn't push native birds to the brink of extinction there would not be so much concern over them being here. For that reason I do not think that mongooses have the "right" to survive in Hawaii since their survival here means the demise of certain other creatures. It all depends on how much you care about the "rights" of each species relative to every other species. It is impossible to address this issue without going on record that one species or another must take precedence over another.
The part about prioritizing the needs of different species in some meaningful way that has teeth is where the rubber meets the road. As diplomatically as possible I say that the concept that "ALL life, both plants and animals, have a right to survive anywhere on this planet" is a statement that only has meaning in the context of a human value system. If there were no people then the succession of species would be neither here nor there. If however people are around to say animals have rights or that a given ecosystem has intrinsic value (aesthetic, economic?) then the debate begins. If the merits of different species are to be debated than a lot of boring and tedious research and analysis must be done on which to base decisions, that is unless you don't really care about getting the right answer. If you conduct that research and analysis or if you respect that done by others, which most of us do when we accept medical treatment without having gone to medical school ourselves, you will be forced to accept certain facts such as that certain native Hawaiian birds are being driven to extinction by certain introduced animals such as mongooses and that you will have to choose between the birds and the mongooses. You will have to go on record as saying that mongooses DON'T have the right to live in Hawaii. Otherwise you will by default have said that the endangered birds DON'T have the right to live here.
It is indeed totally subjective but there is no way around it.
The part about prioritizing the needs of different species in some meaningful way that has teeth is where the rubber meets the road. As diplomatically as possible I say that the concept that "ALL life, both plants and animals, have a right to survive anywhere on this planet" is a statement that only has meaning in the context of a human value system. If there were no people then the succession of species would be neither here nor there. If however people are around to say animals have rights or that a given ecosystem has intrinsic value (aesthetic, economic?) then the debate begins. If the merits of different species are to be debated than a lot of boring and tedious research and analysis must be done on which to base decisions, that is unless you don't really care about getting the right answer. If you conduct that research and analysis or if you respect that done by others, which most of us do when we accept medical treatment without having gone to medical school ourselves, you will be forced to accept certain facts such as that certain native Hawaiian birds are being driven to extinction by certain introduced animals such as mongooses and that you will have to choose between the birds and the mongooses. You will have to go on record as saying that mongooses DON'T have the right to live in Hawaii. Otherwise you will by default have said that the endangered birds DON'T have the right to live here.
It is indeed totally subjective but there is no way around it.