A major concern in managing ecosystems is the growing presence of invasive alien species. Humans often intervene with the intention of protecting and stabilising these ecosystems. However, approaching this issue from a non-anthropocentric perspective raises two significant concerns.
The first concern has been widely discussed in the animal rights literature, where a tension exists between an individual-rights-based approach and ecosystem holism. This tension remains unresolved satisfactorily. In a strong version of animal rights, humans do not have the right to kill invasive alien species. In contrast, the ecosystem view treats humans as a “police force” with lethal powers to manage these species. The second concern is less frequently discussed, which is where my argument comes in.
We are facing rapid ecological change due to human impacts on the planet, particularly climate change. As a result, ecosystems are under pressure and changing quickly, including through evolutionary adaptations to shifting environmental conditions. This phenomenon has been referred to as the “development of Anthropocene biotas.” It means that climate change accelerates a wide range of adaptive processes in ecosystems, both from within and from outside. “Within” refers to changes in the composition of gene pools, while “outside” refers to the migration of species and gene flow. As ecosystems change more rapidly, the phenomenon of “invasion” is becoming increasingly common. In fact, the idea of “invasion” may lose its significance, as the species composition of ecosystems continues to shift at an accelerating pace, driven by both internal and external forces. The concept of “invasive alien species” only has meaning if we assume a stable reference state of an ecosystem that is disrupted by the invasion. However, if no stable state exists anymore, we can no longer clearly distinguish between alien and native species.
This observation has deep ethical implications for human interventions and shifts the debate that I referenced in the first point. Humans cannot legitimise actions against invasive species without a reference to a given ecosystem standard. However, that does not mean that the animal rights position is vindicated.
The challenge that humans currently face is as follows: given rapid environmental changes, they can no longer maintain a restorationist and conservative approach to ecosystem management. Instead, they need to adopt a forward-looking strategy that leverages the evolutionary potentials of evolving ecosystems to address future changes that remain unknown. It is important to acknowledge that humans lack adequate knowledge about future evolution. Furthermore, simply sticking their heads in the sand and attempting to restore the original state is not only ignoring the realities of the situation but also likely to be harmful. Good intentions can lead to negative outcomes.
The consequence is a profound paradox. On one hand, humans can no longer justify what they claim to be responsible actions toward protecting ecosystems. On the other hand, they are compelled to intervene even more frequently to address the mess they have created. Humans face an era of increasing ecosystem conflicts, resembling a “multispecies barbarian migration.” What was once considered an exceptional situation—such as the presence of invasive alien species—may soon become the norm. Human oversight is losing its direction.
I propose a solution. There is a strong human interest in safeguarding humanity’s living conditions. The paradox is that the consequences of human impacts lead to an increasing need for human interventions. As a result, ecosystems become hybridised, and planetary evolution transforms into a coevolutionary process between human social evolution and the evolution of the biosphere. Eventually, the technosphere and biosphere merge, unified by the pervasive influence of human interventions, both for better and for worse.
In my view, the only solution to this challenge lies in developing a multispecies ethics and politics in which humans assume the role of the judiciary and arbiter. What does that mean?
The aim of human interventions has shifted from trying to restore assumed states of “nature” to ensuring the peaceful coevolution of ecosystems as multispecies communities, in which humans are active members. Humans cannot act as external Hobbesian dictators imposing “order” on the coevolutionary process. Instead, they must serve as mediators, arbiters, and sometimes judges, balancing the competing and conflicting interests of the various species that make up the ecosystem (while acknowledging that the borders of that system are fluid, a topic I cannot delve into here). To effectively take on this role, humans need to establish institutional frameworks that allow other species to have a voice, thereby creating a form of multispecies democracy in which the members of the ecosystem constitute the demos. In these multispecies communities, the fundamental criterion of justice that the human judge must uphold is to nurture the evolutionary potential of all species in ways that contribute to shared flourishing.
For example, a human judge might justify the actions taken by human “police” against invasive alien species, but only to the extent that these actions preserve the evolutionary potential of the invasive species while preventing them from suppressing or eradicating the evolutionary potential of other species. There are interesting dynamics to explore here, such as discovering economic uses for invasive species that help regulate their growth and size. This approach could strike a balance among human needs, the survival of other species, and the maintenance of the alien species’ evolutionary potential. After all, it is impossible to predict which species composition will sustain the ecosystem in the future.
There is a frightening resemblance between this scenario and the current challenges that human societies face: the growing pressures of climate change-induced human migration, or, alternatively, the reality that large parts of humanity will confront extreme threats to survival by protecting the privileged areas where the impact is less severe and manageable. The existing political structures of nation-states, while the global community is grappling with economic conflicts, cannot cope with this challenge. I believe that the solution lies in combining both approaches: if humans create multispecies political bodies, they could also find better solutions for intra-species human conflicts. This, however, may remain an idealistic vision.
The technosphere, our agency, our planet 