I quoted Brendan Larson, last week:
> While invasive species have dramatic and varied effects, the “threat to native biodiversity and ecosystems” implies that there is (i) an enduring something, (ii) it is native, and (iii) it is under threat from invasive species.
Brendan Larson has written extensively on this topic and shows how it is affected by the value systems of the stakeholders. By using subjective values such "an enduring something," which is "native, and "under threat," one frames the discussion in a certain way.
Other stakeholders have different values. I may regard an ecosystem as not enduring but in constant change; its members are not intrinsically native and non-native; and plants are incapable of threatening anything, other than the sensibilities of ecologists.
Some examples:
> Phragmites (common reed) is accused of robbing other plants, fish, and wildlife of essential nutrients and living space. Delaware has responded by spraying and respraying on an annual basis a 6,700-acre expanse of the Delaware River estuary with thousands of gallons of glyphosate-based weed killer. In 2013, locals in the Hudson River community of Piermont, New York, discovered a plan to destroy a 200-acre reed marsh fronting the town. Outraged, they fought back. “We love the marsh,” an indignant Marthe Schulwolf, who is active in opposing the scheme, told me. “It’s beautiful, a living environment, with lots of wildlife, and it protected us from the Hurricane Sandy storm surge.” (Cockburn 2015, p. 59).
* Which is worse, the reeds or the Glyphosate?
* Who gets to decide?
> Chalker-Scott dismisses the New York’s City Council’s preference for a native landscape, and goes on to suggest they plant non-native species in order to improve biodiversity. She justifies this suggestion as a “science-based recommendation” (2015). While the New York City Council also supports their statements with data, Chalker-Scott dismisses their claims as unscientific. What Chalker-Scott fails to see is that the New York City Council was never looking to increase biodiversity, but was endeavouring to “provide habitat for local birds, insects and other animals that are indigenous to [the] region." Chalker-Scott’s assumption that her personal values (such as increased biodiversity) should be the values that affect policy decisions — because of her position as a scientist — is an unfair prioritization of Chalker-Scott’s own desires, regardless of her scientific background.
* It's not just unfair, it's a hallmark of an ideologue.
In: Pilkington, 2015
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|