Assisted migration is a fairly recent concept that attempts to relocate species that are struggling to survive by introducing them to ecosystems that are more conducive to their survival. However, while some scientists believe it is our responsibility to assist species that are on struggling to adapt, I believe the case against intervention is much more concrete. In chapter five of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses the reasoning behind both arguments.
To begin, the arguments supporting assisted migration hinge on the fact that we are responsible for creating environmental conditions that make it difficult for certain species to survive in their natural habitat. Hence, some scientists believe it is our responsibility to intervene in order to prevent these species from going extinct. Marris points out that the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and industrial gases that humans have pumped into the atmosphere has severely altered our climate (107). Our world has become hotter and more extreme; some areas get more rain, others get less. Consequently, some species can no longer survive in their original habitat and are forced to migrate to environments that do not exceed their threshold of tolerance. According to the ICPP (International Panel on Climate Change), the average species moves 3.8 miles towards the pole every decade (111). Those species that are unable to move, eventually die (and if they are the last of their kind, become extinct). As a result, some scientists view assisted migration as our obligation because humans are largely responsible for altering the atmospheric conditions to begin with.
Although it might feel like our responsibility to assist nature in its survival, it is not very clear that our assistance will have a positive impact. Marris makes the case that scientists have traditionally approached conservation from the standpoint of nonintervention. If they suddenly abandon this idea for the sake of their conscience, then scientists will start changing the very baselines they have fought so hard to preserve (117). In addition, there is not enough research to predict the type of effect that introducing a new species to a new environment will have. There is legitimate fear among scientists that some species will become invasive and ravage their new home. On the other hand, some may not survive at all. More importantly, it is not feasible to relocate every species on the verge of extinction. To do so would require financial resources far greater than any citizen or country is willing to spend. Hence, assisted migration comes with a hefty price tag, many educated guesses, and the prospective of unforeseen consequences.
Altogether, we are responsible for creating the climate change that makes it difficult for some species to survive in their natural habitat, but it is not our responsibility to assist them in migration. Our intervention is likely to disrupt other ecosystems, reverse our principles on conservation, and create financial burdens. Hence, it is more acceptable for us to refrain from assisted migration until our research can provide more definitive outcomes.
