My hope with the post on “Australia’s approach” and “big bunnies” was that a synthesis of responses to the moral and economic dilemmas (and there are many) posed by the cases individually would help students recognize how interconnected these problems are.

Briefly, in the first case you have an invasive species (introduced by Europeans) that has created a biodiversity crisis of sorts within the greater crisis, and that costs the Australian economy millions of dollars annually. Their solution is to eradicate the population through various measures of negligible effect (toward their cause).

In the second case you have large breeds of rabbits being created through selective breeding practices for the sole purpose of feeding humans (in the specific case presented, to feed humans in a region where there is food poverty). This is a proffered as a potential solution to food deprivation for individuals in North Korea (and perhaps elsewhere).

Specific Questions:

• Is it okay to eradicate rabbit populations in Australia through the various measures employed (this is a moral question)?
• What of the rabbit calicivirus? Should this have been released with a limited understanding of the potential ramifications?
• Is okay to domesticate rabbits, selectively breed them, and allow them to proliferate (controlled) for economic gain (or gustatory satisfaction)? What if in so doing you may eliminate food deprivation for some humans? Is this the most prudent means of eliminating food deprivation for individuals (note that the articles imply that this effort is a precursor to eliminating hunger on a larger scale)?
• What might the Australian experience say to the North Korean efforts?

These are the questions I hoped we could address. I present them this week in hopes that we might do just that.

Blog Home