Due to Australia’s isolation from the rest of the world, it boasts an incredibly unique variety of native wildlife that have evolved within circumstances different from the rest of the world.  However, this native wildlife is threatened as introduced species, such as feral cats and cane toads, disrupt the equilibrium that the Australian geography has historically offered its fauna. One solution (as discussed in the related news articles) is to embed a lethally poisonous implant inside endangered Australian animals, whereupon it the predator will die a relatively painless death upon ingestion.

The categorisation of animals and plants as desirable or undesirable has been a tradition most prominent in agriculture. Only a small select group of animals are cultivated, with the rest deemed unnecessary or harmful. This discrimination also occurs on the species levels, where artificial selection discriminates animals and plants within the same species based on desired traits that determine the produce’s continued propagation. This othering of animals also operates within this discourse of endemic versus introduced species. Animals deemed ‘native’ become weaponized (through implants) as a means to protect themselves from extinction, at the price of their predators. To describe the philosophical underpinnings of this process, I have labelled it omni-endangerment, which refers to the human tendency to believe that parts of the non-human world are unnatural, when in reality, non-humans are not operating by any moral or ethical code—they are just doing what they are biologically programmed to do. Omni-endangerment alludes to the term “endangered species” but also refers to the endangering of unwanted species. The prefix en- refers to ‘in’, while ‘danger’ derives from the Old French dangier, meaning “power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control” (1). The omni- prefix, meaning all, indicates how all non-human entities are at risk of being deemed unnatural based on human whims.

Cane toads contain their own natural venom. Cane toads were imported from Hawaii to Queensland in 1935, as a proposed solution for the beetle pests afflicting sugar cane (2). However, the cane toads soon became widespread over Australia, killing native wildlife as they died after eating the poisonous creature. Although it were humans who instigated the unnatural process of transporting cane toads from their homes into a new land, we label them as an unnatural menace because of the unforeseen, undesirable outcome.

Omni-endangerment occurs in modern agriculture, where crops are sprayed with pesticides to prevent them from being eaten by bugs. These plants are weaponized against creatures that we deem harmful. Of course, omni-endangerment is necessary if we wish to preserve our indigenous species or to maintain large-scale food production. However, the problem arises if we are to believe that animals and plants are the culprits disturbing the ecological balance. We are the ones who designate what is natural and unnatural based on our own needs and wants. Who is to say that introduced species are not natural? How is the human act of transferring a cane toad from Hawaii to Queensland different from how a bird may carry a parasite across continents? In discriminating against nature, we forget that we are also part of it. Omni-endangerment calls for us to recognise our role within nature and to stop accusing non-humans for not conforming to our human mode of being.

1. Online Etymology Dictionary, “endanger (v.).” 19 August 2014, https://www.etymonline.com/word/endanger

2. Centre for Invasive Species Solutions. “How did the cane toad arrive in Australia.” PestSmart, Centre of Invasive Species Solutions, 2012, https://pestsmart.org.au/toolkit-resource/how-did-the-cane-toad-arrive-in-australia.