Abstract

Australian scientists and governing institutions have an ethical obligation to increase resources aimed at suppression-drive techniques for invasive carp. Here I use a form of dominance argument to argue that, in contrast to other options on the table, including a new plan to release deadly diseases into the population, if handled correctly carp suppression drives are the optimal strategy in the long-run. Current evidence strongly supports that these techniques will be far more effective against a wide-spread species like carp than other techniques. To this, I add a series of ethical arguments grounded in the harms caused both by carp, and by humans in controlling carp. These include the harms done to the carp, the harms the carp are doing to other species, our moral obligations towards species preservation and the environment, and arguments from the inherent value of nature. These, in combination with the practical considerations, make suppression drives a clear priority for scientists and policymakers, despite the risks inherent to the technology. As such, I conclude with a call for an increase in funding and research into adapting gene-drives for carp.

Presenters

Ann Thresher
Postdoctoral Researcher, McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society/Stanford Doerr School for Sustainability, Stanford University, California, United States

Details

Presentation Type

Paper Presentation in a Themed Session

Theme

Digital Sustainability: Sustainable Digitalization, Smart Communities, Smart Mobility, Green Technologies, Electronic Waste

KEYWORDS

Environmental Technologies, Invasive Species, Sustainability, Stewardship, Environmental Ethics

Digital Media

This presenter hasn’t added media.
Request media and follow this presentation.