A moral panic over cats

Some conservationists believe that free-ranging cats pose an enormous risk to biodiversity and public health and therefore should be eliminated from the landscape by any means necessary. They further claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. As much as we share a commitment to conservation of biodiversity and wild nature, we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic over cats. Those who question the ecological or epidemiological status of cats are not science deniers, and it is a false analogy to compare them with corporate and right-wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change. There are good conservation and public-health reasons and evidence to be skeptical that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster for biodiversity and human health in all circumstances. Further, there are significant and largely unaddressed ethical and policy issues (e.g., the ethics and efficacy of lethal management) relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife. Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free-ranging cats.     

Nature's impartiality, man's inhumanity: reflections on terrorism and world crisis in a context of historical disaster

This paper compares the terrorist outrages of 11 September 2001 in New York City and Washington to the Lisbon earthquake of 1 November 1755. Both events occurred, literally out of the blue, at critical junctures in history and both struck at the heart of large trading networks. Both affected public attitudes towards disaster as, not only did they cause unparalleled destruction, but they also represented symbolic victories of chaos over order, and of moral catastrophism over a benign view of human endeavour. The Lisbon earthquake led to a protracted debate on teleology, which has some parallels in the debate on technological values in modern society. It remains to be seen whether there will be parallels in the reconstruction and the ways in which major disasters are rationalised in the long term. But despite the differences between these two events--which are obviously very large as nearly 250 years of history separate them and they were the work of different sorts of forces--there are lessons to be learned from the comparison. One of these is that disaster can contribute to a perilous form of self absorption and cultural isolation.