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!