7 ms·
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
by 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 agoAlso, 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 agoYou 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 agoHow 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 agobut 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 agotrue, 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 agoI think you raise a good point. I’d be curious to hear the reasoning on the downvotes.
- pygy_ 7y agoWe 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 agoWho 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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.