From Biocide To Genocide - Invasive Species and the Biosecurity Threat To Life And Liberty

"Everywhere we encounter seeds which represent the beginnings of parasitic growths which must sooner or later be the ruin of our culture...(O)ne of the most potent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on that earth." -- Adolph Hitler, 1943

"Now, more than ever, ortho birth control the time to be vigilant, and for us all to play a part in protecting those things which quintessentially define us as a nation -these things make our country and our spirit unique and special in the world." -- Biosecurity mortgages for people with bad credit Zealand, 2004

In 2006, the legislature of the state of Hawaii passed a law officially defining the introduced coqui tree frog as a "pest" species. The frog, loved in its native Puerto Rico, has a distinctive nocturnal chirp that disturbs some Hawaii residents. While other residents and property owners appreciate the coqui and its sound, those who wish to silence the frogs have agitated for a "Frog War", and have pushed through legislation to allow the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to force its way onto private property to spray poisons to kill coquis without owner consent. The official "pest" designation gives the government that right, trumping private property rights. And Hawaii is not the only place that is happening. The attack on non-native species is challenging property rights worldwide, and poses a grave threat to life and liberty.

Due to human intercourse around the planet, species of animals and plants are being introduced, intentionally and unintentionally, into environments where they are not currently found. Some of these introductions can lead to environmental changes and a shift in the natural equilibrium. Governments around the globe are developing methods for controlling that spread of species, including programs for excluding imports, preventing exports, and eradicating unwanted "aliens" that "don't belong".

That the introduction of species can alter the environment into which they immigrate is undeniable and can be scientifically and objectively assessed. Whether or not such changes are desirable or beneficial, however, is a subjective matter, based on value judgments and politics, and not on science.

There are many instances where the introduction of a species is clearly against the best interests of human health. For example, nobody who values human life would encourage the introduction of disease carrying mosquitoes to areas where they are not currently found. The issue, however, is not that the mosquitoes are "alien" to the new environment, but that they are dangerous, regardless of their "nativity". In fact, eradication campaigns against these mosquitoes would be conducted even if they were a "native" species. The same would apply to other clearly noxious pests that pose a threat to human health.

Preventing the spread of noxious pests is something responsible governments and agencies have been doing for decades. It is relatively uncontroversial.

However, there are instances where the introduction of a species is decried, not as a threat to human health, but as a threat to the environment. Newly introduced species can alter the dymanics of the food chain, and compete with local species for space. As development and pollution destroy environments on a daily basis, the further stress to local species caused by introductions seems a threat to local "biosecurity".

However, is that really an issue of biosecurity, or of human insecurity?

Changes to the fauna and flora that can injury lawyers 4 you from introductions are part of a natural selection process. If a species is better fitted to survive in an environment, then its success is a natural outcome. The environment has no value system to judge what species are good or bad. If a species survives and favorably competes with its neighbors (new or old) for space and food, then nature deems it the winner in the struggle for life. That is, until another species comes along to challenge its position in the scheme of things.

that means that new species introductions do not harm the environment. They may change it. But the concept of "harm" derives from human-centered notions of good and bad, of desirable and undesirable. When we see a volcano destroy a forest with a lava flow, for example, that is not environmental harm. It is environmental transformation. However, if persons wanted the trees more than the lava, then it is considered environmental harm. To call a species introduction a threat to the environment, then, is not a scientifically valid statement, since it reflects human priorities and not natural ones.

It does, however, reflect the human/cultural desire to live in a specific environment and control the influences on that environment. A culture that believes that humans are stewards of the environment believes that it is our responsibility to define the nature of that environment. Introduced species take away our sense of control.

Introductions can also effect human economy. Clearly, a species that is a pest to agriculture can hurt business. There are billions of dollars spent every year controlling these pests. And the changes in habitat that can result from some introductions can lead to esthetic issues, as "weed" species replace desirable ones.

But here, again, we see human values defining the problem with introductions. Agriculture and esthetics are human concerns. In fact, all the concerns over introduced species are anthropocentric, making them the subject for sociology and anthropology, not biology.

Nevertheless, the field of "invasion biology" has emerged over the past few decades to fight alleged threats to the biosecurity of an area. Biosecurity is the new term for invasive species control. In 2004, New Zealand pioneered a new Biosecurity New Zealand agency. According to is website, www. biosecurity.govt.nz, "Biosecurity New Zealand is passionate in its desire to keep that country free of unwanted organisms, to prevent or reduce any damage these may cause should they occur, and to protect and preserve our land, our water, our industry and our persons."

Is that a rational, scientific agenda, or a political one?

The zealous and "passionate"agency wants to keep the country "free of unwanted organisms". Who will define what is "unwanted". According to their mission, "unwanted" includes species that can threated the health, environment, or the economy. But it also includes, " Those things which quintessentially define us as a nation -these things make our country and our spirit unique and special in the world."

Here the nationalistic agenda of biosecurity is made clear. You might think biosecurity would deal with issues like the spread of anthrax. For New Zealand, it is concerned with the preservation of national identity, which is somehow connected to the environment. To these New Zealanders, they are the environment. Aliens from outside threaten their identity and spirit.

that same identification with the environment was part of Nazi environmental sentiment during the Third Reich. In fact, the Nazis planned for the creation of hunting preserves in conquered eastern forests, which they wanted to stock with European bison, bear, wolves, and as much of the ancient mega-fauna as possible. They wanted to eliminate all "alien" species from Europe.

Intolerance for aliens knows no species boundaries. If the Nazis were able to extend their hatred for aliens to include humans (i.e., Jews, homosexuals, blacks, etc.), could the New Zealanders and those who are planning on following their lead do the same? Can biosecurity lead to a loss of political security?

Consider the following example.

Imagine that you owned a large tract of land. You have landscaped the land just the way you like it, and spend much effort keeping it that way. Your place is fenced all around to keep out unwanted creatures, and keep in desirable ones. Next to you is another large tract of land, owned by your neighbor, who has the same concern for his place, although a different sense of esthetics. He has different plants and animals, ones which you do not want.

It would be reasonable for you to have concern for the "biosecurity" of your place. If weeds started to sprout, you would be wise to vigilantly control them and eradicate them if possible. You would be careful about any plants you brought onto your place, inspecting it for insect pests or other problems, lest you introduce trouble to your small world.

Imagine, now, that you are sharing that tract of land with other persons. When the land was yours alone to define, there were no political issues involved. It was your personal tastes and judgements that directed your management of your environment. However, living with others adds a political dimension to your management plans. What happens if anyone living with you has different values and esthetics that you do? What if the others want some of the animals and plants that your neighbor on the other side of the fence has on his place? Should these species be introduced? What is the others want to eliminate some of the plants or animals that are already on your place?

Suddenly, environmental policy becomes politicized. It is no longer just your place. Should things be handled democratically, with everyone voting on which species should stay and which should go? Unless the community is fully informed about the environmental outcome of their decisions, which even trained scientists can not predict with certainty, any decision could lead to environmental chaos and an undesirable outcome.

Should there be a dictatorship, with the decision left to a small group of individuals? That's what is happening in New Zealand. A small group of "biosecurity" "experts" are defining what is "unwanted". They are defining the "quintessential" things that make New Zealand's persons and "spirit" what it is. What if you are part of that environment and do not agree with that definition? Perhaps you are an immigrant yourself. Would the keepers of that sacred spirit turn on you, too, as an enemy of the country?

Returning to our example, let's say a group of persons on your tract of land did rise to power and decide what species of plants and animals are acceptable and wanted, and which are to be destroyed. And let's say that the persons who disagree with that and who try bringing in verbotten species are forced into compliance by laws and threats of imprisonment. Would that guarantee the "integrity" of the homeland? Not necessarily.

Suppose that the neighbor has a plant whose seeds are spreading to your environment. You can repeatedly engage in seed reconnaissance and destroy seedlings as they appear. Or you could get at the source of the seeds, which is your neighbor's trees. Stopping a problem at its source is much more effective in the long run than treating a problem endlessly. So the environmental dictators in your community decide to approach your neighbor and demand that they eliminate their offensive trees.

Of course, the neighbor may not be willing to eliminate his trees. And politics, again, will determine how that will play out. flat rate data recovery your community force the neighbor to comply? Will there be a war? Since your community has created a sort of national identity that correlates with the species in its environment, it would seem essential to fight to preserve that identity and environment. Biosecurity becomes personal security.

To maintain the identity of your community you must make sure, as well, that there is no dissention from within. Those persons who import "alien" thoughts and values become as much a threat as those who bring in "alien" species. If a community deems it necessary to fight for its identity and "spirit" by opposing influences from without, then it will also oppose such decadent influences from within.

that is how the Nazis used their environmental policy of exclusivity and abhorance for the "alien" to justify genocide. Unless you are one of them you are an alien, and a threat to their identity.

New Zealand's Biosecurity program wants to keep out and destroy "unwanted organisms" that can threaten the "quintessential" nature of New Zealand. There is no explicit exclusion for humans, who are also organisms. After all, persons bring in these other species. Some human immigrants can pose as great a threat to the "spirit" and "quintessential" nature of New Zealand as any other immigrant species. Indeed, humans are the most "invasive" species of them all, since humans activities are a constant threat to human health, the environment, and the economy.

It is only a matter of time until biocide becomes genocide. The environment is the State. And the State is everyone. The enemy of the State must be destroyed. The Nazis showed how that works. New Zealand, and nations wanting to emulate their policies, such as South Africa, Australia, and the United States, are goose-stepping their way down the same Erectile Dysfunction passage.

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, located in Hawaii. His unique form of applied medical anthropology searches for the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. His working assumption is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and the attitudes and behaviors it instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture/lifestyle, that approach has resulted in many original discoveries into the cause, and cure, of many common diseases. It also makes prevention possible by eliminating adverse lifestyle practices. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several groundbreaking health books.

Sydney also runs the organization CHIRP, promoting homeowner loans of the coqui frog in Hawaii. www.HawaiianCoqui.orgwww.HawaiianCoqui.org He is also the co-author of Panic in Paradise: Invasive Species Hysteria and the Hawaiian Coqui Frog War (ISCD Press, 2005.)

Sydney's background includes a B.S. in biology from the University of Utah; an M.A. degree from Duke University in biochemistry and anthropology; 2 years of medical school training at UTMB at Galveston, along with Ph.D. training in medical humanities.

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer can be reached at the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, P.O. Box 1880, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 (808) 935-5563.