Response from Douglas Burnham on February 23, 2009

Let us assume for the purposes of discussion the 'equal consideration' account of animal ethics. We could perhaps define a 'pest' as any creature or group of creatures that is threatening the sustainable balance of an ecosystem. So, a pest is not just something nibbling my lettuces, which I don't want nibbled, or biting my arm which I rather prefer unbitten. Rather, a pest occurs only within a seriously out of kilter environment (thus the original mean of the term: plague). In such a case, I imagine, action against the pest is morally warranted but only insofar as to restore a more sustainable situation. So, if a plague of beetles is depleting forests in the Rockies, then pesticide seems justified; if a lack of natural predators means that the deer population is ballooning in an area, then perhaps culling (or better reintroducing predators) is justified. Your question comes down to: are we prepared to define human beings as 'pests'?

Many are, of course, and there is and has been for some time a 'militant' wing of environmental and animal activists. However, notice that pest is never (or very rarely) a singular noun. Individual human beings are not the problem on this way of thinking; rather, it is the way humans behave as a sub-system of the whole. The behaviour of the individual pest is a symptom and not the … plague itself. For example, one might point to aspects of the human sub-system such as an economic system that encourages the use of cheap but dirty fossil fuels, or a political system that does not enforce land stewardship. So, though you are right that convincing all people to behave in this way or that is probably impossible, nevertheless there may be system-wide actions that can be taken. For example, raising taxation on certain fuels, or enforcing existing legislation on land stewardship. We don't expect to convince the locust not to eat the wheat, nor will stopping this or that locust do much good. We want to address the conditions behind the plague.

Response from Jean Kazez on February 23, 2009

I have nothing to add to Douglas Burnham's response, but can't resist a terminological quibble. "Speciesism" is the term Peter Singer (following Richard Ryder) uses to mean a prejudice against animals. So if you think animals should receive equal consideration, as Singer does, you're going to want to call yourself something other than a "speciesist." Unfortunately, there's no standard term for your view. Singer says "all animals are equal," as the animals say in the book Animal Farm. As I recall, the pigs who use that slogan call themselves "animalists," but it doesn't have much of a ring to it.