Recently philosophers have argued that genetically engineering predators to become herbivores is a morally viable option (Bramble 2020; Pearce 2015; McMahan 2015;). Others have argued that high fecundity high mortality life strategies should be engineered into low fecundity low mortality breeding life strategies (Johannsen 2017). This is part of a larger movement in philosophy, untethered to the realities of biology or human society which has looked to intervene to remove predators from the wild (MacAskill and MacAskill 2015; McMahan 2015; Nussbaum 2022). This movement has been closely aligned with the TESCREAL movement and is highly influenced by antinatalist philosophy (Belshaw 2016). While Delon and Purves (2018) provide a solid critique of interventions to alleviate animal suffering, focusing on ecological resilience, a stronger rejection of these views is warranted. These interventions are not possible due to the basic structure of population biology and will result in rolling extinctions and animal suffering in different forms. The policies proposed would amount to ecocide, if successful, and even if they are failures the act to try these interventions will undermine the norms and justification of conservation. Ultimately, this ideology establishes damaging precedents for human society, fostering dystopian futures for humanity and nature.

Christopher Lean is a Research Fellow within the Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University, working with the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology. His primary research areas are philosophy of the life sciences (biology, ecology, medicine) and ethics (bioethics, environment, technology). Recently, he has been writing about the role of biotechnology in conservation, invasive species, novel ecosystems, and synthetic biology. His research has been featured in the New York Times, awarded the Australian Association of Philosophy Media Prize, presented at the Woodford Folk Festival, and helped create a biotechnology start-up.