Beyond ‘Pests’: How Colonial Agronomy, Capitalist Convenience, and Cultural Bias Shape Human‑Animal Conflict
Original framing: “Why are some animals considered ‘pests’? It comes down to culture and convenience” — The Conversation - Global
Ecological research quantifies the ecosystem services provided by many so‑called pests, including pollination, seed dispersal, and natural pest regulation. Meta‑analyses demonstrate that blanket pesticide use reduces biodiversity and can exacerbate pest outbreaks through trophic cascades. A science‑based approach calls for integrated pest management (IPM) that balances control with conservation.
The designation of certain animals as ‘pests’ is a cultural artifact rooted in colonial agronomy, capitalist convenience, and power‑laden narratives that marginalize Indigenous and smallholder knowledge.
Historical eradication campaigns, reinforced by scientific misinterpretations and policy incentives, have entrenched a narrow view that ignores the ecosystem services these species provide. By foregrounding Indigenous stewardship, cross‑cultural practices, and future climate scenarios, we can redesign agricultural and urban systems to value relational coexistence over extermination. Implementing community‑led IPM, ecosystem‑service‑based policy reforms, participatory climate planning, and artistic reframing offers a concrete pathway toward equitable, resilient ecosystems.