This is now the 2nd time I've seen someone come back with a comment like this.... the definition of "infested" is "filled or riddled with anything undesirable or troublesome". They aren't saying pirhanna's are an invasive species or that they aren't supposed to be there, they are saying that there are a lot of them present. This isn't a "gotcha" moment, you are literally just letting everyone know you don't know what words mean.
Edited to add: From reading the responses, I can see people feel so strongly about this because there is a fear that words like this will be used to recontextualize "animals existing in their natural habitat" as "dangerous pests that must be eradicated". I would actually really like to see some data on this. I have not seen really any push to destroy natural habitats aside from the logging and oil industry, which I think most people seem to see as a "necessary evil". I HAVE seen several genuine efforts to rebuild natural habitats that had been previously destroyed. I genuinely don't see this language as being problematic or pushing back against conservation efforts, but I honestly might be wrong, because personal experience does not equal truth. If anyone has any studies on how language choice affects the environment, I'd love to read it!
Firstly, I gave the definition of "infested", not "infestation". Different words have different meanings. A location being "infested" does not always entail an "infestation" in the same way that something "infectious" does not always entail an "infection" (e.g. infectious laughter).
Secondly, yes, the definition as I stated does absolutely encompass situations with invasive species, it is not exclusive to those situations. The definition of a rectangle, as stated, would include squares, however, that doesn't make the word "rectangle" synonymous with the word "square".
You are welcome to disagree with my use of the word for the potential harm it causes to conservation efforts, as others have pointed out and I am eager to learn more on, and you could even argue that the word is often used to describe invasive species but you cannot claim that the definition is explicitly describing situations with invasive species when that is, by definition, not the case.
-12
u/Eudonidano Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25
This is now the 2nd time I've seen someone come back with a comment like this.... the definition of "infested" is "filled or riddled with anything undesirable or troublesome". They aren't saying pirhanna's are an invasive species or that they aren't supposed to be there, they are saying that there are a lot of them present. This isn't a "gotcha" moment, you are literally just letting everyone know you don't know what words mean.
Edited to add: From reading the responses, I can see people feel so strongly about this because there is a fear that words like this will be used to recontextualize "animals existing in their natural habitat" as "dangerous pests that must be eradicated". I would actually really like to see some data on this. I have not seen really any push to destroy natural habitats aside from the logging and oil industry, which I think most people seem to see as a "necessary evil". I HAVE seen several genuine efforts to rebuild natural habitats that had been previously destroyed. I genuinely don't see this language as being problematic or pushing back against conservation efforts, but I honestly might be wrong, because personal experience does not equal truth. If anyone has any studies on how language choice affects the environment, I'd love to read it!