4 ms·

The whole concept of "invasive species" makes me a bit uncomfortable. For one thing, preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preser

The whole concept of "invasive species" makes me a bit uncomfortable. For one thing, preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preserving the purity of your local human race, but it's not entirely different either. Also, an the world becomes more and more connected, it's a battle doomed to be lost. And those battles, as much as we might wish otherwise, should not be fought. Also, the idea that new species "destroy" ecosystems is really flawed. What they do is change ecosystems. With a new species, an area finds a new balance after a while, and life goes on.

thrdbndndn 4y ago
Mind to give some rationales? To me it's as simple as to preserve the diversity of the species. Even without scientific reason, I just like the fact we have more species on the Earth. If I want see carp, I can go to their origin, they have plenty. Like, life goes on in Africa with or without giraffes. But it would be a tragedy if my grandchild couldn't see one with their own eyes.
jasonjayr 4y ago
I think it's more complicated than that. Humans are a pretty apex species. Any ecosystem we move into, we have the tools and ability to dominate it with little effort. Humans also, somewhat recently in our timeline, began to really understand and appreciate the effects we have on ecosystems. Additionally, there is some collective desire to try to preserve the state of these areas, so future generations can also admire + study them. When we inadvertently (or deliberately) manipulate an ecosystem, and observe the damage it causes, we try to fix it. Maybe it's hubris to think that we can do so w/o damaging it another way, but we like to try. Especially when it could damage something else that directly impacts something we value, like a local economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3oLeSPINOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3oLeSPINOk
chii 4y ago
> the idea that new species "destroy" ecosystems is really flawed. it's not. If a species were to naturally migrate, it takes decades, or even centuries, to cross continents. This gives the destination ecosystem time to adjust. But because humans travel so fast, and so far, migration of species piggybacking reach previously unreachable ecosystems without letting the natural balance to actually happen - therefore, destroying an ecosystem in the process (or, in your words, the ecosystem is changed so much as to be unrecognizable, since existing species cannot compete at all). > preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preserving the purity of your local human race, but it's not entirely different either. it's definitely different. Purity of human race is social - the genetic differences are barely noticeable. "purity" of an ecosystem is not about race, nor purity, but about biodiversity, and keeping balance. An invasive species that naturally reach a destination would not be considered an invasive species.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  > This gives the destination ecosystem time to adjust You're right that it takes some time for an ecosystem to adapt. But whether a new species is introduced slowly or quickly, the end result will be the same. I think it's mostly human society that needs the time to adjust. If a cute species disappears in their lifetime, many people will be upset. The next generation won't know what they missed.
shlant 4y ago
I agree with your arguments when it comes to "preserving the purity of your local human race" or culture - it's essentially impossible to stop those shifts. However I don't think it applies the same way to invasive species - people and their ideas are very hard to filter for in terms of immigration but stopping people from bringing in animals or plants is much easier and we have systems for that already in place.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Depends on the size of the animal. The invasive hippos in Colombia (yes, it's real) can easily be exterminated anytime the Colombians want. But I don't think there is any chance of removing the House Sparrow from America.
jasongi 4y ago
> For one thing, preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preserving the purity of your local human race, but it's not entirely different either. It is entirely different. We are all the same species. Race is a social construct, and unlike foreign species introduction, the introduction of a wider genetic or cultural pool does not cause an ecosystem collapse. > Also, the idea that new species "destroy" ecosystems is really flawed. What they do is change ecosystems. With a new species, an area finds a new balance after a while, and life goes on This is just optics. You could say nuking a city just “changes” it into a desert wasteland instead of destroying it.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  > ...the introduction of a wider genetic or cultural pool does not cause an ecosystem collapse. Here is my point: What exactly do you mean by "an ecosystem collapse"? There are hundreds of invasive species only here in the US. No part of the country is untouched. Have all the US ecosystems collapsed? Have any?
JusticeJuice 4y ago
New Zealand would like to have a word

thrdbndndn 4y ago

Mind to give some rationales? To me it's as simple as to preserve the diversity of the species. Even without scientific reason, I just like the fact we have more species on the Earth. If I want see carp, I can go to their origin, they have plenty. Like, life goes on in Africa with or without giraffes. But it would be a tragedy if my grandchild couldn't see one with their own eyes.

jasonjayr 4y ago

I think it's more complicated than that. Humans are a pretty apex species. Any ecosystem we move into, we have the tools and ability to dominate it with little effort. Humans also, somewhat recently in our timeline, began to really understand and appreciate the effects we have on ecosystems. Additionally, there is some collective desire to try to preserve the state of these areas, so future generations can also admire + study them. When we inadvertently (or deliberately) manipulate an ecosystem, and observe the damage it causes, we try to fix it. Maybe it's hubris to think that we can do so w/o damaging it another way, but we like to try. Especially when it could damage something else that directly impacts something we value, like a local economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3oLeSPINOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3oLeSPINOk

chii 4y ago

> the idea that new species "destroy" ecosystems is really flawed. it's not. If a species were to naturally migrate, it takes decades, or even centuries, to cross continents. This gives the destination ecosystem time to adjust. But because humans travel so fast, and so far, migration of species piggybacking reach previously unreachable ecosystems without letting the natural balance to actually happen - therefore, destroying an ecosystem in the process (or, in your words, the ecosystem is changed so much as to be unrecognizable, since existing species cannot compete at all). > preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preserving the purity of your local human race, but it's not entirely different either. it's definitely different. Purity of human race is social - the genetic differences are barely noticeable. "purity" of an ecosystem is not about race, nor purity, but about biodiversity, and keeping balance. An invasive species that naturally reach a destination would not be considered an invasive species.

BurningFrog 4y ago
> This gives the destination ecosystem time to adjust You're right that it takes some time for an ecosystem to adapt. But whether a new species is introduced slowly or quickly, the end result will be the same. I think it's mostly human society that needs the time to adjust. If a cute species disappears in their lifetime, many people will be upset. The next generation won't know what they missed.

shlant 4y ago

I agree with your arguments when it comes to "preserving the purity of your local human race" or culture - it's essentially impossible to stop those shifts. However I don't think it applies the same way to invasive species - people and their ideas are very hard to filter for in terms of immigration but stopping people from bringing in animals or plants is much easier and we have systems for that already in place.

BurningFrog 4y ago
Depends on the size of the animal. The invasive hippos in Colombia (yes, it's real) can easily be exterminated anytime the Colombians want. But I don't think there is any chance of removing the House Sparrow from America.

jasongi 4y ago

> For one thing, preserving the purity of a local ecosystem is not the same thing as preserving the purity of your local human race, but it's not entirely different either. It is entirely different. We are all the same species. Race is a social construct, and unlike foreign species introduction, the introduction of a wider genetic or cultural pool does not cause an ecosystem collapse. > Also, the idea that new species "destroy" ecosystems is really flawed. What they do is change ecosystems. With a new species, an area finds a new balance after a while, and life goes on This is just optics. You could say nuking a city just “changes” it into a desert wasteland instead of destroying it.

BurningFrog 4y ago
> ...the introduction of a wider genetic or cultural pool does not cause an ecosystem collapse. Here is my point: What exactly do you mean by "an ecosystem collapse"? There are hundreds of invasive species only here in the US. No part of the country is untouched. Have all the US ecosystems collapsed? Have any?

JusticeJuice 4y ago

New Zealand would like to have a word