The southern part of New Zealand is a unique blend of natural forest and farmland. Farmers have, over the decades, transformed large parts of the land into vast grassy sheep farms. But much natural forest remains and I was told that it is at risk due to the action of exotic pests such as possums and deer.
A farmer I dialogued with explained that the deer population is growing and this is a problem because they destroy native forests. He, therefore, goes on hunting trips with friends. They shoot deer. It seems that maintaining the natural forest necessitates the killing of deer. For clarity, I asked my friend if this applies to any non-native animal that threatens the natural forest. He said yes. Indeed, they shoot many different types of animal. The argument runs as follows:
P1. (premise) Because the natural forest must be maintained, any non-native animal that threatens the forest must be killed.
P2. (premise) Deer is a non-native animal that threatens the forest.
C. (conclusion) Deer must be killed.
We can insert any pest into this argument. Premise one is of most interest to me. I confirmed with my friend again that this applies to any non-native animal, and he again made this confirmation. By Zeus, I said, are people not non-native animals? And do people not destroy natural forests to make farmland? We don't condone shooting people, so it seems that the argument does not apply to at least one non-native animal. Conveniently for us, that non-native exception is people.
My friend laughed as if I was most foolish and explained that of course people don't count. We have to destroy forest to make farms because we need to survive. I reminded him that the deer have to destroy forest because they also need to survive. I very much want to know why people are granted an exception.
My question has not yet been answered. I suppose we have given ourselves the god-like right to decide which animals live and die, and which animals are allowed to destroy the natural forests and which ones are not. It is good to be human.