Administrative arrogance in believing ecosystems can be controlled caused the “lovebug” chaos

The massive outbreaks of lovebugs over the past few years are not simply a biological phenomenon. They are the result of a misguided administrative attempt by local governments to create artificial forests with Chinese cypress instead of waiting for natural forests to take shape. They are nothing less than the backlash produced by the arrogance of an administration that believed ecosystems could be easily controlled.

Lovebugs cause discomfort to people and create sanitation problems, but at the same time they also perform ecological functions such as decomposing fallen leaves and aiding pollination. That is why they can be both pests and beneficial insects, and sometimes neither. In this sense, the very dichotomy of “beneficial insect” and “pest” may itself be an arbitrary distinction rooted in a human-centered perspective.

Within this framework, local governments, the media, and environmental groups each take different positions on lovebugs. One side opposes extermination, calling them environmental cleaners, while the other urges control on the grounds of public inconvenience. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment, which is the actual legal authority in this matter, has ignored the “risk assessment” provision under the Biodiversity Act and has made no decision for three years. In the end, it is citizens alone who are left to bear the burden. The administrative authorities presumed to have brought lovebugs into Korea bear no responsibility whatsoever.

Nevertheless, in some areas citizens have found ways to adapt on their own. Commercial districts install protective screens on windows during lovebug season, and restaurants have shifted toward primarily indoor operations. Some drivers have even attached makeshift protective panels to the front of their vehicles. These are examples of autonomous responses to changes in the ecosystem. They are not perfect solutions, but even without directives from the central government, people experiment, adjust, and live according to reality. This kind of social adaptation is also an expression of spontaneous order.

If a problem caused by artificial intervention rather than spontaneous order is approached with another artificial solution, there is a strong chance of repeating the failures seen in past cases of ecological intervention. At one time, invasive species such as largemouth bass and bullfrogs were labeled ecosystem-disrupting species and efforts were made to eradicate them. In the end, however, the natural ecosystem itself found balance and absorbed them into it. In other words, nature’s own adjustment proved more effective than artificial attempts at removal.

Nature always creates order on its own. Even without human intervention, ecosystems find balance through complex interactions. This is what we call “spontaneous order.” The coexistence, competition, and regulation of countless species operate without anyone’s command. In that respect, liberalism is aligned with the natural order. It is not an order born of central command, but one formed through the free responses and mutual adjustments of countless actors.

The justice liberalism speaks of is not one in which human beings design or direct every order, but one that respects the very order formed through the autonomy and mutual adjustment of each actor. The same is true of justice toward nature. It should begin not by declaring a particular species harmful based on human judgment or inconvenience and then intervening accordingly, but by understanding and accepting why and how that species came into being. Not control but understanding, not domination but adjustment—these are the core of ecological justice.

The confusion surrounding lovebugs is ultimately the result of an administration that believed nature could be easily controlled. But ecosystems are not simple, nor are they something to be cut up and used for human convenience. True environmentalism does not begin with attempts to control nature, but with the recognition that human beings must humbly adapt themselves to nature’s order.

The question, “Are they beneficial insects or pests?” is the wrong one. The more accurate question is this:

“By whose standards should nature be judged?” That judgment should belong not to the central government, but to citizens, communities, and nature itself. Nature does not teach. But it is always quietly answering. To listen carefully to that answer—that is true justice.

Sijin Kim, Research Fellow, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: 생태계 통제 가능하다고 본 행정 오만이 '러브버그' 혼란 불러와

Author: Si-jin Kim

Date: 2025-07-24

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=press&idx=27921