6 ms·

While I understand the point about zebra mussels cleaning up lake Erie, I can't agree with the idea that we should welcome all invasive species. After all, the

by rob74 7y ago

While I understand the point about zebra mussels cleaning up lake Erie, I can't agree with the idea that we should welcome all invasive species. After all, the presence of e.g. feral cats on various islands or foxes in Australia is just another one of the messes humans made, and we should feel as responsible for the damage they do as we feel responsible for pollution. Zebra mussels may be one of the few examples where an invasive species was actually good for the ecosystem, other invasive species just exterminate or squeeze out native species, leading to a loss of biodiversity.

jaspax 7y ago
I don't think that Greer is claiming that we should "welcome all invasive species" as much simply pointing out that Nature doesn't stand still. What we call an "invasive species" is, from a broader perspective, simply Nature adapting to changing circumstances, which includes opening up new habitat to previously unknown species. This only looks odd or threatening if we assume that Nature should be static and fixed, and that only humans can or should enact environmental change.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  Also, that evolution works by "the survival of the fittest". If an invasive species (that didn't evolve in the environment it's invading) is better-suited to the environment than the native species (who did evolve there, and by rights should be better suited to it), then that's a win for evolution. The fitter species survive, and will then evolve into the niches available. The introduction of mammals to New Zealand is a disaster for the birds that live there and that have evolved into all the niches available. But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there (otherwise they wouldn't be so successful). Cane toads, though... that one is going to be interesting.
  - empath75 7y ago
    > But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there It's not a win in either case. It's just what happened. Evolution and nature and the biosphere don't have goals.
    - mrfusion 7y ago
      You raise a good point too. if there are no wins or losses in nature maybe it comes down to promoting species we enjoy most?
      - ordu 7y ago
        How about maximizing diversity? Because it is more fun for people and because it increases fitness of the biosphere as an ultimate ecosystem? As for me it sounds better. Yes, local people could be annoyed by lions or venomous snakes, but for the most humans lions and snakes are just a curiosity that makes world more interesting.
        marcus_holmes 7y ago
        but I think this was the point of the article. Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds biodiversity as a higher virtue than survivability and adaptability. Is that justified? This is the thing: if species A out-performs species B in a given ecosystem niche, and species B becomes extinct as a result, that's how nature works. That's evolution. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about that. Survival of the fittest. If humans caused species A to be there, that's irrelevant. It doesn't make Species A's survival (or species B's extinction) "unnatural" or "wrong". We were just a transport mechanism, like any other "natural" transport mechanism. Surely evolution and survival of the fittest overrules biodiversity?
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      true, good point. I would rephrase it, but I think it's sufficiently clear as is, if we accept that there is no actual "winning" involved here as you point out.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    I think you raise a good point. I’d be curious to hear the reasoning on the downvotes.
    - pygy_ 7y ago
      We humans benefit from a stable environment. In stable-ish conditions, ecosystems evolve towards stable configurations where the sun's energy can be optimally tapped. Those disruptions bring unstability (boom-bust cycles of high amplitude) and thus danger for us.
      - marcus_holmes 7y ago
        Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.
        pygy_ 7y ago
        It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.
        marcus_holmes 7y ago
        I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incredibly fast changes.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Amorymeltzer 7y ago
>Zebra mussels may be one of the few examples where an invasive species was actually good for the ecosystem And maybe just this ecosystem. As noted elsewhere here, zebra mussels have caused tons of other problems. In less-polluted lakes, they filter the water clear, which not only reduces fish populations but can lead to massive growth of algae.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  And it only cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year since 1980, plus lots of fish. A really sweet deal!. In the other hand, some of this billions of dollars could be used in nature conservation, or cleaning the lake by our own means and forever, or...
rdiddly 7y ago
You can't really even talk about what's "good" for an ecosystem in this large of a context though. Any criterion you would care to come up with or name, is gonna end up being a human idea. You can't see the world except through eyes. Example: Is clear water inherently "good" or is it just something humans like? These mussels prefer the dirty water. Maybe in the Zebra Mussel Bible, the cleaning of the lake water is called "the coming apocalypse due to our greedy exploitation of nature" and the polluted years are remembered fondly as "the good times." Is an island populated by a larger number of species more finely-adapted to smaller niches, "better" than an island overrun with mostly generalists (cats and a couple of prey species)? In other words is biodiversity "good" or is it just something humans like? Certainly greater biodiversity is associated with longer periods of unchanging climate/geology/etc. that, to us, resemble our (maybe fitting, maybe not) concept of an "equilibrium." Not coincidentally these periods include the one we've been in for a few thousand years now, during which all writing, agriculture, cities and civilization developed. So we tend to think of them as "natural" and as a "norm," that we maybe will or maybe won't disturb. But those periods are only part of the story. There are also those dynamic, changing, cataclysmic periods. And when those are going on, biodiversity tends to be less initially, as shown by the mass extinctions visible in the fossil record. Just to completely take it over the top, is life better than death? Cuz the natural order seems to think they both should happen in almost exactly equal measure. Plus, "An empty glass is full of opportunity." A dead tree is a great boon to the next generation of little trees that grow on the rotting trunk, not to mention all the fungi etc. that survive by doing the rotting. I dunno, it's hard to formulate any "puny huuu-mon" judgments about anything that don't just fall apart.

by rob74 7y ago

jaspax 7y ago

I don't think that Greer is claiming that we should "welcome all invasive species" as much simply pointing out that Nature doesn't stand still. What we call an "invasive species" is, from a broader perspective, simply Nature adapting to changing circumstances, which includes opening up new habitat to previously unknown species. This only looks odd or threatening if we assume that Nature should be static and fixed, and that only humans can or should enact environmental change.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
Also, that evolution works by "the survival of the fittest". If an invasive species (that didn't evolve in the environment it's invading) is better-suited to the environment than the native species (who did evolve there, and by rights should be better suited to it), then that's a win for evolution. The fitter species survive, and will then evolve into the niches available. The introduction of mammals to New Zealand is a disaster for the birds that live there and that have evolved into all the niches available. But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there (otherwise they wouldn't be so successful). Cane toads, though... that one is going to be interesting.
- empath75 7y ago
  > But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there It's not a win in either case. It's just what happened. Evolution and nature and the biosphere don't have goals.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    You raise a good point too. if there are no wins or losses in nature maybe it comes down to promoting species we enjoy most?
    - ordu 7y ago
      How about maximizing diversity? Because it is more fun for people and because it increases fitness of the biosphere as an ultimate ecosystem? As for me it sounds better. Yes, local people could be annoyed by lions or venomous snakes, but for the most humans lions and snakes are just a curiosity that makes world more interesting.
      - marcus_holmes 7y ago
        but I think this was the point of the article. Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds biodiversity as a higher virtue than survivability and adaptability. Is that justified? This is the thing: if species A out-performs species B in a given ecosystem niche, and species B becomes extinct as a result, that's how nature works. That's evolution. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about that. Survival of the fittest. If humans caused species A to be there, that's irrelevant. It doesn't make Species A's survival (or species B's extinction) "unnatural" or "wrong". We were just a transport mechanism, like any other "natural" transport mechanism. Surely evolution and survival of the fittest overrules biodiversity?
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    true, good point. I would rephrase it, but I think it's sufficiently clear as is, if we accept that there is no actual "winning" involved here as you point out.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  I think you raise a good point. I’d be curious to hear the reasoning on the downvotes.
  - pygy_ 7y ago
    We humans benefit from a stable environment. In stable-ish conditions, ecosystems evolve towards stable configurations where the sun's energy can be optimally tapped. Those disruptions bring unstability (boom-bust cycles of high amplitude) and thus danger for us.
    - marcus_holmes 7y ago
      Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.
      - pygy_ 7y ago
        It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.
        marcus_holmes 7y ago
        I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incredibly fast changes.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Amorymeltzer 7y ago

>Zebra mussels may be one of the few examples where an invasive species was actually good for the ecosystem And maybe just this ecosystem. As noted elsewhere here, zebra mussels have caused tons of other problems. In less-polluted lakes, they filter the water clear, which not only reduces fish populations but can lead to massive growth of algae.

pvaldes 7y ago
And it only cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year since 1980, plus lots of fish. A really sweet deal!. In the other hand, some of this billions of dollars could be used in nature conservation, or cleaning the lake by our own means and forever, or...

rdiddly 7y ago

You can't really even talk about what's "good" for an ecosystem in this large of a context though. Any criterion you would care to come up with or name, is gonna end up being a human idea. You can't see the world except through eyes. Example: Is clear water inherently "good" or is it just something humans like? These mussels prefer the dirty water. Maybe in the Zebra Mussel Bible, the cleaning of the lake water is called "the coming apocalypse due to our greedy exploitation of nature" and the polluted years are remembered fondly as "the good times." Is an island populated by a larger number of species more finely-adapted to smaller niches, "better" than an island overrun with mostly generalists (cats and a couple of prey species)? In other words is biodiversity "good" or is it just something humans like? Certainly greater biodiversity is associated with longer periods of unchanging climate/geology/etc. that, to us, resemble our (maybe fitting, maybe not) concept of an "equilibrium." Not coincidentally these periods include the one we've been in for a few thousand years now, during which all writing, agriculture, cities and civilization developed. So we tend to think of them as "natural" and as a "norm," that we maybe will or maybe won't disturb. But those periods are only part of the story. There are also those dynamic, changing, cataclysmic periods. And when those are going on, biodiversity tends to be less initially, as shown by the mass extinctions visible in the fossil record. Just to completely take it over the top, is life better than death? Cuz the natural order seems to think they both should happen in almost exactly equal measure. Plus, "An empty glass is full of opportunity." A dead tree is a great boon to the next generation of little trees that grow on the rotting trunk, not to mention all the fungi etc. that survive by doing the rotting. I dunno, it's hard to formulate any "puny huuu-mon" judgments about anything that don't just fall apart.