0

I have watched video on youtube where guy pours molten aluminium into fire ant colony to make casing. In the comments below there's huge discussion on is that a right thing to do.

Main argument on the opposing side is that ants do not feel pain - therefore it's ok. I have done some reading around and opinions differ greatly.
I have also asked a question on BIO SE do ant's feel pain and got quite a few comments on that they are 'invasive species' and should be exterminated.

From which ethical perspectives is it or is it not a good course of action to exterminate a species if it is 'invasive'?

I mean fire ants are driven by instincts and have no idea they are 'invasive' nor any insect can be held accountable for invading territory it's only natural selection in action.

ChristopherE
  • 5,478
  • 1
  • 18
  • 31
Matas Vaitkevicius
  • 1,371
  • 1
  • 18
  • 34
  • 1
    *"From the perspective of ethics..."* There are many ethical perspectives, some of which would find it morally acceptable and others which would not. Without narrowing the question down to a particular ethical theory, this question is both too broad to be reasonably answered and will generate primarily opinion-based answers whereas we are looking for more academic answers. – stoicfury Nov 11 '14 at 10:44
  • Voting to reopen based on edit specifying utilitarianism. – Chris Sunami Nov 11 '14 at 15:47
  • 1
    I also vote to reopen. – Rodrigo Nov 12 '14 at 13:32
  • I am not sure that is even what he means. But everyone is going to argue from the moral base they can defend, anyway, perhaps after saying why utilitarianism is not the right frame. Can we just edit the question to ask on what basis one might and on what basis one might not make this argument? –  Nov 12 '14 at 21:02
  • 1
    I am going to vote to reopen, whether or not someone approves the edit. It is a good question, now, either way. –  Nov 12 '14 at 21:05

2 Answers2

1

It is never going to be a good idea to exterminate a species entirely. I think it is addressed easily by utilitarian thinking on biodiversity, removing the last occupant of a given niche endangers the system as a whole. And any given species might have been the last in its niche to survive. It is a low-to-moderate risk of a very high cost, and just not worth it.

But I think this is reinforced more powerfully by a less intelligence-focused framing of Kant's duty not to kill. Genetic niches produce goals in much the same way human autonomy produces goals. Eradicating a species removes something that has a goal in the larger scheme of things that you probably do not comprehend. An individual horse may be a means, but the entire species of horses should still be an end-in-itself. (It is an interesting question where in the middle we pass over the gap. But we don't need an answer here.)

On the other hand, if it is invasive, the species foreign and strong, so it is probably thriving elsewhere, and this is not really the issue. (This is not natural selection, it is unnatural for the species to be here to begin with.)

Still, eradicating a colony of ants may be the ant-equivalent of a killing (in a way that just killing off large numbers of ants for convenience is not) because the colony represents their sole genetic source, a piece of their identity, and their genetic trust the same way your body does for you.

At the same time, in order to be invasive, a species also has to be threatening the local ecosystem. Just being foreign does not make a species invasive, it has to endanger the species whose niches it is filling. And it has to have a genetic advantage acquired from the change in environment that allows it to do so -- tasting bad to local predators, going unnoticed as potential prey, being larger and stronger because the old environment was more hostile, etc.

Killing something that is in the process of killing other things of comparable worth via inappropriate leverage is analogous to taking down an crazed man who is waving a gun at a crowd, especially if you just brought him there, not knowing he would go off. (His craziness makes him as innocent as your ants are. His gun represents their unfair genetic advantage. Our gun represents our many unfair genetic advantages. Humans or human land alterations are almost always the culprits that bring invasive species to their new environments.)

This kind of killing in defense of others, even if your target is innocent because he is unaware of what he is doing, is defensible on many bases, from Kant to Mill: He might kill, and if he is disoriented enough, he would probably not consider himself guilty if he did so. Also the aftermath would be a disaster on a few different fronts. If you indirectly caused this confrontation, you cannot just walk away from it and let him remain a threat.

If such a killing is the only thing that is going to work, you may need to do it carefully, but it should happen.

1

Almost every species is 'invasive' at first. The notion of 'invasive' species is a poor one.

Ornello
  • 55
  • 2
  • What is the definition of 'invasive' that you consider poor? The one used by most folks is 1) transplanted by an outside force 2) a threat to local species 3) not appearing to be appropriately limited by natural forces. The fear is that we caused the problem and nature may not solve it fast enough to prevent an unstable ecosystem in the area. –  Nov 13 '14 at 19:13
  • 2
    In truth, there is no such thing as an 'invasive' species. The whole notion is absurd. The 'local species' have no more right to live there than any others. The 'local species' almost certainly displaced other species in the distant past. – Ornello Nov 14 '14 at 21:12
  • Yeah, but we didn't cause that via transplantation, so it happened at a pace nature could handle. Natural selection should be **natural** not caused by human transportation. –  Nov 23 '14 at 20:47