> 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 cr

> 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.