Red Herring #2 and its Consequences
The End Is Nigh proclaims the placard held aloft by the dishevelled old man who appears to be the (barely) living embodiment of his message. People do everything they can to avoid his gaze for fear that he will engage them in conversation. The guy with the placard is easy to caricature as one of society’s outcasts. But his views are not as marginal as you may think. A recent survey estimated that nearly four in 10 U.S. residents think that the severity of recent natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy is evidence the world is coming to an end!

So-called end-timers are a diverse group who can be found in the places of worship of various religions and cults, in the meetings of radical environmental organisations, in university bars debating the nature of reality, or in clubs partying like it’s 1999!

A lot of people have been looking forward to the end of the world, which has been nigh for some time now: early Christians  prophesied that the world would end on the first day of the year 500; in 1976 Southern Baptist minister Pat Robertson predicted that the world would end in October or November 1982; apparently unabashed, Robertson then made a second prediction in 1990 that the world would be destroyed on April 29 2007; and recently millions held their breath on 21 December 2012, the day the ancient Mayan Calendar ended. This track record of failed prophesies appears to be no deterrent to the harbingers of doom!

So why is this belief in the end of days a Biological Invasions Red Herring? Well, conventional wisdom tells us that if you believe that the end is nigh you will have very little incentive to do anything about biological invasions, or indeed any other environmental or social issue. In some cases you may even welcome crises which could be interpreted as portents of a non-earthly paradise to come. Protecting our environment for future generations is perhaps not much of a motivation if you believe that there won’t be any future generations to protect!

Red Herring #2 is unlikely to be expressed very vocally at meetings in which biological invasions are discussed, but end-timer views may still be firmly held by some of the participants in these meetings. But more significant, is the fact that such views are likely to be prevalent among a large proportion of the general public upon whose support the effective management of biological invasions ultimately depends. 

Some suggestions for addressing Red Herring #2
Introduce this red herring but be respectful. People have deeply-held views and going on the offensive, getting aggressive or belittling others will only polarise discussions.

When it comes to those I call the “die hard end-timers”, there’s probably not a lot we can do to persuade them to care about biological invasions. Die hard end-timers are those who metaphorically chant:

     “What do we want?” 
     “The end of the world!” 
     “When do we want it?” 
     “Now!”

However, there is another (probably larger) group that I call the “arm’s length end-timers” – and they metaphorically chant:

     “What do we want?”
     “The end of the world” 
     “When do we want it?” 
     “Soon but not just yet!” 

In other words the end of the world is just beyond arm’s length. So the arm’s length end-timers still have a stake in the present and immediate future. Doing something about biological invasions can make sense to them if you emphasise the short and medium term benefits.  For instance preventing foot and mouth from establishing in UK in 2001 could have saved UK agriculture and associated activities about £3.1 billion (Thompson et al. 2002), California’s Mediterranean Fruit Fly Exclusion Program saves the state $1.4 billion a year in reduced crop yields and other costs and keeping many small islands malaria-free saves thousands of lives and immeasurably enhances people’s quality of life. 

And remember, most people have doubts and many people change their tune over time. The once nihilistic musicians Prince (life is just a party and parties weren't meant to last) is still partying well into his sixth decade and former Smiths front-man Morrissey (come Armageddon, come Armageddon, nuclear war) is no longer quite the angry man he used to be (if indeed he ever was!). Even Pat Roberson has extended the interval between the date on which he first makes his prediction of Armageddon and that of his chosen doomsday, from 6 years in 1976 to 17 years in 1990! 

So it is still worth sowing the seed that biological invasions matter and that we can do something about them. Not everybody will be receptive at first but the seed may germinate over time! 

Coming up next: Red Herring #3: It’s only natural - Species have always moved from place to place so what’s all the fuss about?

Reference
Thompson, D.,Muriel, P., Russell, D., Osborne, P., Bromley,A., Rowland, M., Creigh-Tyte, S. & C. Brown (2002). Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2002, 21 (3), 675-687.

Red Herring #1 and its Consequences
At some point in almost every meeting to discuss biological invasions somebody will make a statement along the lines of “humans are the worst invasive species on planet Earth and we should do something about ourselves first before thinking about other species”. This statement is sometimes politely acknowledged and/or echoed before moving swiftly on with the business of the day. In other instances this opening salvo can catalyse a fierce and polarised debate about man’s potential for good and evil. Back-and-forths will occasionally ensue about the nature of the term introduced invasive species – if a criterion for introduced invasive species is human mediated dispersal how can humans be invasive when they are dispersed as humans not by humans (the slave trade and other imposed migrations being notable exceptions)? And so things degenerate into an orgy of philosophising and pedantry; aka a long, winding and deeply entrenched road to nowhere. In the heat of the debate the fence sitters – the less articulate, less passionate or less interested - will have either joined one of the opposing camps or turned off the debate altogether. By the time things have moved on, both the snoozers and the bruisers may struggle to revive and/or reconcile.

Red Herring #1 is a variation on the theme that humanity is the cause of all environmental problems. Misanthropy - hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind - has deep roots in the environmental movement. At its most extreme this attitude represents a form of self-hatred applied to the humanity as a whole. “Phasing out the human race” said Dave Forman - founder of the radical environmental organisation Earth First! - “will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” Even Maurice Strong, first Executive Director of the considerably less radical organisation - the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - asked “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?" Quotes such as these are gleefully seized upon by right wing anti-environmental groups and used as tar to be liberally brushed upon all those who care about the state of our planet.

Strictly speaking there is some truth to Forman’s statement. All social and environmental problems will be solved without people, as social and environmental problems are human constructs - ten out of ten for accuracy but zero out of ten for utility. A less extreme standpoint may be to highlight the urgent need for a reduction in human populations as part of a sustainable growth strategy. However, even this focus also doesn't help us to act constructively on the management of biological invasions as (ethically acceptable) population reduction, even if achievable, would take some time. We have to act from where we are and not where we would like to be.  So although we are unquestionably the sole driver of biological invasions, we are also the only solution.

It is paradoxical that the human race is capable of the highest and the lowest of acts. We can initiate wars and feed the starving, perpetrate genocides and devote ourselves to the sick, commit terrorist atrocities and risk death in non-violent protest. We are a world of Hitler’s and Gandhi’s, Pol Pot’s and Mandela’s, Bin Laden’s and Mother Theresa’s. There are problem sides and solution sides to every issue and we need to focus on the solution side of the issue if we are to persuade others that our cause is worthwhile. Self-flagellation saps energy and enthusiasm while a focus on things we can achieve is empowering and energising. Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist you are right; and it does not serve our purpose to be a pessimist.

Some suggestions for addressing Red Herring #1
Forewarned is forearmed. Those who facilitate meetings on the subject of biological invasions need to be aware that the topic of humanity as the world’s worst invader will inevitably arise. Address the issue proactively and list the following reasons why the subject does not merit a long and detailed discussion: 1) Red Herring #1 has crude explanatory power but it does not help us find solutions; 2) Red Herring #1 can stimulate divisive and non-productive exchanges and we need to act in a coherent way if we are to make progress; 3) A fixation with Red Herring #1 wastes much of our valuable mental bandwidth on something over which we have very little control - a sure fire path to burnout.

Broadcast this message from the rooftops: We are the source of AND the solution to all environmental and social problems!!

Coming up next: Red Herring #2: We’re all doomed - So what’s the point of doing anything!

Many billions of dollars of damage are caused to our planet every year by biological invasions - the increase in density and/or spread of species directly or indirectly by people, to threaten ecosystems, habitats or species with economic, social or environmental harm. Some species can become invasive when introduced to suitable habitat outside their native range or when the ecology of their native range is altered, e.g. through agricultural intensification, changes in soil nutrient status or because of fluctuations in numbers of associated organisms such as predators and prey. 

The usual suspects come to the top of most peoples’ invasive species lists: Species such as the cane toad (Rhinella marina) which is a major threat to Australian wildlife, the ship rat (Rattus rattus) that spreads disease, harms agriculture and causes species extinctions, the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) estimated to cost at least half a billion dollars per year in damage to people, agriculture and wildlife in the USA, and the water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) which has clogged up water bodies in many of the warmer parts of the world. Sorry if I’ve missed out your “favourite” but it could end up being a pretty long list!

A less well-known but nonetheless pernicious “species” in the biological invasions world is the “Red Herring”. The physical red herring (Clupea herengus) - a fatty, commercial fish native to the north Atlantic and Pacific with a reddish colour when smoked does not, as far as I know, cause any biological invasion problems. However, the metaphorical red herring - a subject that causes confusion thus distracting attention from the main issue – can generate enough misunderstanding, frustration, conflict and exasperation to derail actions to effectively manage biological invasions. I have identified the following as my Big Five Red Herrings of Biological Invasions:

1. People are the real invasive species – So let’s do something about our numbers first.
2. We are all doomed - So what’s the point of doing anything? 
3. It’s only natural - Species have always moved from place to place so what’s all the fuss about?
4. Concern about species introductions is essentially racism - Species introduction, like human immigration, is a positive thing and those who advocate managing the process are eco-fascists.
5. Aliens! What’s in A-word? – Alien means extra-terrestrial and those species you talk about evolved on planet earth.

In this series of blogs I will introduce each of my Big Five in turn, explain why I feel that it distracts from the main issue – the effective management of biological invasions, and make some suggestions for minimising its pernicious consequences. Much like Africa’s Big Five game animals (lion, elephant, leopard, buffalo and rhino), not everybody will agree with my list and you may want to add some red herrings of your own. 

Although there are subtle differences in the suggested actions for each red herring, all of them boil down to highlighting the issue as early as possible in order to discuss its potentially distracting consequences. In the language of biological invasions I am advocating a risk management strategy to prevent the arrival, establishment and spread of the red herring! As we know only too well an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

Coming up next: Red Herring #1: People are the real invasive species – so let’s do something about our numbers first.

The “but” in the middle of the cliché “simple but effective” implies that “simple but effective” is the exception to the rule – that rule being that “sophisticated” is mostly more effective than simple. For “sophisticated” read long and jargon-ridden reports, complicated statistics, tables and graphs, and the world’s most effective remedy for insomnia - the interminable PowerPoint presentation: things that I would never produce … except when I do!

A close relative of “sophisticated and effective” is the rarely stated, but often implicit, notion that some issues are just too complex for the proverbial man on the street to grasp. The assumption is that issues such as climate change, population growth and HIV/AIDS should be left to the experts while the rest of us can relax and watch Jerry Springer!

Another way of dealing with complex issues is to dumb them down – to be simplistic rather than simple. Dumbing down may be even more dangerous than the elitist stance outlined above. Dumbing down is the territory of those who are happy to selectively use facts to support a prejudice: climate change is a myth; family planning is impossible for members of certain religions; HIV and AIDS are rife throughout the whole of Africa.

Enter Hans Rosling, a wide-eyed, enthusiastic, charismatic, sword-swallowing Swedish Statistics Professor - an unlikely combination if you believe the stereotypes! Rosling, 64 years young, is passionate about data visualisation - crunching vast quantities of data into simple visual summaries that can inform everybody – real INFORM-ation. Through his Gapminder organisation, Rosling is harnessing the power of data visualisation to communicate the facts about global trends in international development to the 99.something percent of us who are not subject matter experts. In this way he aims to reduce prejudice concerning international development to help drive positive change. Classic Rosling presentations include 200 countries in 200 years in four minutes where he debunks the notion of a simple divide between the rich and poor, religions and babies where he shows that there is no relation between religion and the number of babies per woman, and my current favourite, Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine in which he communicates the drivers of  energy use and economic development in a way that anybody can understand.

With the explosive increase in data production and an ever-growing competition for our attention, we all need to find the most effective ways to communicate the information we generate. Hans Rosling, you have shown us that simple and effective must be our default setting!

I was inspired by Christopher Makau’s talk about the self-help group in Nairobi, Kenya that have turned a rubbish dump into a garden that is feeding more than 30 families. And how Kibera TV is showcasing this work globally. 

This YouTube video is an excerpt from Chris Anderson's TED Talk - How YouTube is driving innovation (see http://bit.ly/14clFH7 for the full talk). As Anderson emphasises in his talk, YouTube is the perfect vehicle for what he calls crowd accelerated innovation for which you need three things: a crowd (people who share a common interest), light (open visibility to see the best of what there is to offer) and desire (from social status, altruism, desire to be recognised, etc.). The web in general and YouTube in particular is providing a platform to amplify all three of these factors 

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and its offshoot Appreciative Living are organisational and personal development paradigms that encourage inquiring about, learning from, and building upon what is working in order to facilitate positive change. The core of AI is the notion that what you focus on expands.

Pioneered by David Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva of Case Western Reserve University in the late 1980s, AI has been attracting a growing following and its principles have been successfully applied to a diverse range of organisations including Nutrimental, Hunter Douglas, GTE, Red Cross, British Airways, the United Religions Initiative and the US Navy.  Appreciative Living is a programme that has adapted AI principles to personal development. Pioneered by Jackie Kelm, Appreciative Living now has registered practitioners in twelve countries.

One of the biggest criticism of AI is that it doesn't address the negatives; that it, is a form of problem-avoidance and denial. This notion can be illustrated by the following scenario: a participant returns from an AI meeting full of energy and enthusiasm only to encounter the unchanged negative “realities” of office politics, budget cuts, delays in programme implementation, and so on. The rose tinted specs are yanked off and AI is filed away as “nice but not for the real world”. In such a case either AI has been poorly facilitated or the participant was sleeping during some vital segments of the workshop. Because AI IS designed to address the negatives, but not in a way that negates the positive aspects that exist in every situation. AI cannot afford to ignore negatives because if a burning issue is not attended to it will inevitably come back to bite you!

Jackie Kelm paints the picture of our lives as a movie that constantly plays in front of us on an imaginary screen. This screen has a line going through the middle. On one side of the line are the positive things – talents, dreams, and creative ideas, to name a few. On the other side of the line are the negative things – fears, failures, weaknesses and so on.

So assuming that AI has been “done right”, will it produce a cohort of reality-denying Pollyannas? In Jackie Kelm’s words: 

The opposite is actually true. It may seem ironic, but spending time on the positive side gives you the courage, inspiration, and motivation to deal with the “bad stuff.” 

A well-facilitated AI workshop can help to start you off on this positive path but ultimately it takes persistent, purposeful practice to sustain the change.