Taxacom: Politically correct pest management!

[Stephen Thorpe]

So, here is a link to a newly published article which illustrates the way things are heading in science, or rather the way that political correctness and social justice is influencing science, for better or for worse (or a mixture of both):
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frelationalthinkingblog.com%2F2023%2F07%2F04%2Fplain-language-summary-managing-biological-invasions-with-justice-for-indigenous-communities%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C10414dc7195b4d87851d08db92ede3c1%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638265322649584326%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WuzLYm0rk%2FgvfUYIxPOMDTcA6MoxCtipC2K4Dnz4apA%3D&reserved=0

(if the link doesn't come through, just Google plain-language-summary-managing-biological-invasions-with-justice-for-indigenous-communities)
So, for what they are worth, here are my thoughts: 
The article does make the good point (which has already been made elsewhere) that a simplistic exotic=bad, native=good dichotomy, with eradication as a default response to exotics, is not a very good approach. Eradication is often expensive and pretty much impossible. I would say, for example, that Predator Free 2050 is both of those things and is really just an excuse to create a new mini-industry for the economic benefit of those managers and institutions involved, while at the same time exploiting well-meaning volunteer labour, euphemised as "community engagement".
So, I agree that the eradication default for exotic species does require modification in favour of a more balanced and realistic approach, less dominated by the economic benefits from creating a new mini-industry. However, I am less impressed by what I see as the hijacking of this issue to further a rather particular hardline version of politically correct social justice.
The article seems to suggest that a more balanced and realistic approach to invasive species management requires (or at least would be greatly enhanced by) indigenous involvement, not just because of the technical insights that they might bring to the table, but also (quote) because they also attend directly to human and environmental justice concerns (unquote). The article also suggests that the terminology of "natives" versus "aliens" literally alienates indigenous people because it reminds them of the colonial past.
So, what to make of all this? Something doesn't sit right with me, even though I agree that traditional approaches to invasive species management could indeed benefit from a shake-up. The article seems to suggest that, without indigenous input, the non-indigenous part of the scientific community is incapable (or at least to a significant degree less capable) of attending directly to human and environmental justice concerns, whatever these are exactly in relation to invasive species management? If what they mean by that is just that the white folk in charge of everything are primarily motivated by economic benefits to themselves (collectively as a group, as well as individually), then there may well be some truth in that. However, it is easy to criticise and take the moral high ground when one is excluded from something, but you really do have to ask yourself the hard question if you would actually do any different in their position? True motivations on either side may not actually be very different.
I suspect that there is already indigenous consultation in invasive species management, so what do the authors of the article actually want? Maybe they want the actual decisions to be taken by indigenous leaders? I'm not sure. As I said, it all just comes across to me, rightly or wrongly, as a hijacking by a particular agenda of politically correct social justice. The terminology issue seems particularly absurd, i.e. the idea that the term "natives" evokes traumatic reminders of the brutal colonial past and so should be abandoned! The "natives" are actually the good guys in this context anyway. They are the ones we are already trying to protect from the nasty "colonialist" invasives!
If science does indeed have any meaning beyond the economic concerns of employed scientists, and I hope it does have such meaning, then it ought to be possible to re-evaluate invasive species management strategies without the need for indigenous input. One might still choose to have some indigenous input, but it wouldn't be strictly necessary. The only relevance of "human justice" concerns to invasive species management is just that, like absolutely any other issue of human concern, it is better to be more inclusive in terms of community involvement, with nothing particularly relevant to invasive species management. Having said that though, there may be problems with such an approach in other areas: Western* medicine, for example, has been spectacularly more successful than traditional indigenous alternatives. Fewer people are dying nowadays from curable illnesses. We wouldn't want to have to return to a more traditional approach to medicine just for politically correct reasons of inclusivity and diversity! If your daughter has cancer, for example, you want to go straight to a treatment that works and that you can have confidence that it is the best option. Trying to undermine Western science (including medicine) on grounds of political correctness, social justice and/or inclusivity could plausibly lead to preventable deaths, similar to well publicised cases of religious beliefs which are inconsistent with some vital medical procedures.
*I use the term "Western", but with the rise in influence of China, perhaps "Western" now should include "Eastern"? Side issue, though!
Stephen