8 ms·

Why is that worth noting here? This specific plant is invasive, damaging, and non-native. Quibbling on the definition of a "weed" seems completely non-sequitur.

jakear 3y ago
What makes you say it’s damaging? Some arbitrary moral framework whereby “native” species are better than “invasive” ones, most likely. I’m of the opinion that human-accelerated SGD (aka “Evolution”) is a natural phenomenon just like any other.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I guess many people would prefer not to live in a world with a dozen species crowding out all of nature's diversity, beyond specific issues caused by this one plant.
  - Lutger 3y ago
    True, but as a society we certainly don't act like we care at all about biodiversity. The thing is though, this is not likely what will happen. It will temporarily crowd out existing vegetation, which will create the conditions for new species to arise. By bringing more carbon into the soil, it will increasing fertility and with that, new forms of life can take place and in turn crowd out the pioneering 'weed', increasing rather than diminishing biodiversity. Certainly some species will be lost. This is called succession. But others will take their place. I'm not sure if Arizona will have the climatic conditions to move far beyond a desert, but that is what is happening and what we would be preventing.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      That process takes a very long time, much longer than it takes for things that exist today to go extinct
  - kbelder 3y ago
    When grass evolved it took over the world, killing innumerable species, and decimating ecosystems. This weed may suck and maybe we want to keep it out of the desert for various reasons... but it shouldn't be dressed up as some kind of nature-preserving virtue. It's just bio-engineering to keep the ecosystem how we want it.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Oh never mind, I guess mass extinction is fine then.
      - jakear 3y ago
        Indeed it is. Every biological renaissance in known history was preceded by a mass extinction event.
        emodendroket 3y ago
        If something has happened in the past, that means it’s good and we should do nothing to prevent it from happening again. Indeed, if we ourselves are the main reason it’s happening this time, that’s fine too, since it’s happened before.
        jakear 3y ago
        It is important, when ironically agreeing with someone, that the pseudo-agreement expresses your supposed shortcomings. Otherwise you’re just legitimately agreeing, but snarkily (and weakly).
        emodendroket 3y ago
        Hey if you want to wholeheartedly embrace a worldview so nihilistic it doesn't have an answer for why we should try and stop people from doing mass murder, go nuts.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Read the article. It's aggressive growth chokes out other plants and creates a fire hazard that isn't present with natives.
  - jakear 3y ago
    So fire is the issue? That’s the thing that we can be 100% certain is definite bad news? The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea.
    - UncleEntity 3y ago
      > The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea. WTF does that even mean? Too bad you can’t grow redwoods in the desert I guess?
      - jakear 3y ago
        Please provide a reference to the research discovering that wildfires are a necessarily “bad thing” in deserts across bio-geologic timescales.
        ses1984 3y ago
        If a fire burns down your house, it's ok because it doesn't matter on bio-geologic timescales, right? You're the one bringing the idea of bio-geologic timescales to an issue that is having an impact right now.
        jakear 3y ago
        Yes, my house matters not at all, on any timescale. Even less because I’m homeless.
        seattle_spring 3y ago
        The onus is, without a doubt, on you to provide research supporting your initial claims here.
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  > What makes you say it’s damaging? They say it’s damaging because it promotes wildfires which kill off the other plants. Of course it’s a moral judgment because Nature has no moral framework. You may be fine in letting “native” species go extinct but others obviously don’t share your opinion and go out of the way to prevent it.
  - jakear 3y ago
    I already mentioned the Western Juniper, a “native” plant which the USFWS actively finances burning. A moral framework where some native species need heaven and earth moved for them to not be burned while other native species need taxpayer dollars to finance their combustion isn’t very appealing to me. Live and let live, I say.
    - UncleEntity 3y ago
      > Juniperus occidentalis, known as the western juniper, is a shrub or tree native to the Western United States… Since you obviously don’t understand how these plants have adapted themselves and the role of wildfires to western living I’d suggest, maybe, doing a little research on the subject. I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns.
      - jakear 3y ago
        What is it you think I don’t understand, taking into account I have volunteered months of my time on USFWS refuges engaged in the active burning of the Western Juniper, and have conversed at length with biologists involved in the management of said refuges? And have read literal textbooks on said Species. And read hundred+ page reports on the plans for managing said species. > I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns. I’m glad you stated it so plainly, as I can be equally certain you’re dead wrong.
        kylewatson 3y ago
        This weed is growing in the low valley, not where junipers are growing. There are about 4000ft of difference here. The article shows Carefree AZ as an example of infestation, which is at 2400ft. Junipers grow at 6000ft. I can't believe you're really trying to make the argument that this plant is great because it will burn saguaros or barrel cactuses and we burn juniper on purpose so that must be good for saguaros and barrel cactuses. Don't get defensive. I'm not upset at you. Just think about this argument. It's not a logical argument. You're saying that if X is good for Y and B causes X' for Z, then B is good. But you have not established that X' is good for Z, and you haven't established that B causes X for Y. So if this plant doesn't cause fires for Junipers, and if fires aren't good for desert plants, then how the hell are you arguing this plant is good because it causes fires for desert plants? Don't take my word for it. Ask ChatGPT if this makes any damned sense. Maybe the matrix can convince you that this is an illogical argument.
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  Have any reputable literature to share that backs up your opinion?
  - jakear 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
    - seattle_spring 3y ago
      About as relevant as citing the Bible, with respect to this discussion.
      - jakear 3y ago
        Environmental pressure leads to adaptation and speciation. I don’t know what more evidence you want of my claim that a new pressure isn’t necessarily bad for general “quantity” of speciation.
- kylewatson 3y ago
  It is damaging. The Sonoran Desert is home to plants and animals not found anywhere else on earth. The desert is alive. It is not just some sand in between freeways and stucco houses. These plants spread rapidly and cause more frequent and hotter fires than any that the native plants have evolved with. Just because sometimes fire is good for some life forms does not mean all fire is good for all life forms. I can't believe I even have to explain this to someone. Damn. Some of you just want to argue to argue. Go ask chatgpt to argue with you, or ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else. leave the rest of us alone. damn.
  - jakear 3y ago
    > ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else Alright that was pretty funny. For the rest of it, if all you’re going to do is be mad about making the same (unsupported) “the only correct action is that which minimizes dEnvironment/dt” (aka “native=good, introduced=bad”) claim as everyone else, why bother commenting at all?
    - kylewatson 3y ago
      It's not just that they are native, it's that they are unique to that location. You are not going to get many people - other than the idealogical zealots like you - to agree that things that can eliminate a species from the planet are a good thing. You probably side with the Rhino Poachers too, because the invisible hand of the free market values boner powder.
goatlover 3y ago
The idea of invasive centers on the notion that ecosystems are largely static. But the reality is the environment is dynamic and always changing, with or without humans. Life has always migrated all over the place. There is no ideal state of nature. There's no lasting equilibrium. Yes, humans speed change by giving species a ride to other places. But a new dynamic will be achieved.
- jakear 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Lutger 3y ago
It is worth noting because it brings more self awareness. The 'weedness' of the plant is a property of human culture, and it is worth exploring what that is. It doesn't mean the 'weedness' doesn't exist: there are many reason we don't like a plant and want to destroy certain plants and some are quite valid, like fire hazards for example. For example, you quote non-nativeness as a self-evident negative property of the plant. But this is highly debatable. It is not clear at all what nativeness means in the plant world (really) or if it really is undesirable. There are some common ideas around being 'not beneficial to biodiversity' for example, but it turns out plants are relatively quick to adapt and gain relationships. Dismissing these perspectives as non-sequitur and not worth exploring isn't really contributing to an insightful discussion. I'm not saying weeds are good or something like that, I just want to convince you this actually is worth noting and exploring.
- onlypositive 3y ago
  It's not worth noting. There is quite a few people in this thread arguing for the sake of arguing about what a weed is in a thread about a very serious weed taking over very large swaths of habitat. It's kind of disgusting.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    It's not disgusting. It's a question of how we view nature. The idea that we can just preserve ecosystems as they were isn't very tenable. The idea that invasive species don't deserve to be invasive is questionable. We're making all these value judgements about what nature and shouldn't be. But nature has always changed, just depends on the time scale. And life has always spread into new areas and become invasive. We did so migrating out of Africa. So does an ant colony floating on a log to an island that didn't have ants before. Life colonized the oceans, then it colonized the lands, and it colonizes new islands that popup, and populations shift around as the climate changes and new migration routes become available. The Sahara was a savanna thousands of years ago.
    - onlypositive 3y ago

jakear 3y ago

What makes you say it’s damaging? Some arbitrary moral framework whereby “native” species are better than “invasive” ones, most likely. I’m of the opinion that human-accelerated SGD (aka “Evolution”) is a natural phenomenon just like any other.

emodendroket 3y ago
I guess many people would prefer not to live in a world with a dozen species crowding out all of nature's diversity, beyond specific issues caused by this one plant.
- Lutger 3y ago
  True, but as a society we certainly don't act like we care at all about biodiversity. The thing is though, this is not likely what will happen. It will temporarily crowd out existing vegetation, which will create the conditions for new species to arise. By bringing more carbon into the soil, it will increasing fertility and with that, new forms of life can take place and in turn crowd out the pioneering 'weed', increasing rather than diminishing biodiversity. Certainly some species will be lost. This is called succession. But others will take their place. I'm not sure if Arizona will have the climatic conditions to move far beyond a desert, but that is what is happening and what we would be preventing.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    That process takes a very long time, much longer than it takes for things that exist today to go extinct
- kbelder 3y ago
  When grass evolved it took over the world, killing innumerable species, and decimating ecosystems. This weed may suck and maybe we want to keep it out of the desert for various reasons... but it shouldn't be dressed up as some kind of nature-preserving virtue. It's just bio-engineering to keep the ecosystem how we want it.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Oh never mind, I guess mass extinction is fine then.
    - jakear 3y ago
      Indeed it is. Every biological renaissance in known history was preceded by a mass extinction event.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        If something has happened in the past, that means it’s good and we should do nothing to prevent it from happening again. Indeed, if we ourselves are the main reason it’s happening this time, that’s fine too, since it’s happened before.
        jakear 3y ago
        It is important, when ironically agreeing with someone, that the pseudo-agreement expresses your supposed shortcomings. Otherwise you’re just legitimately agreeing, but snarkily (and weakly).
        emodendroket 3y ago
        Hey if you want to wholeheartedly embrace a worldview so nihilistic it doesn't have an answer for why we should try and stop people from doing mass murder, go nuts.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Read the article. It's aggressive growth chokes out other plants and creates a fire hazard that isn't present with natives.
- jakear 3y ago
  So fire is the issue? That’s the thing that we can be 100% certain is definite bad news? The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea.
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    > The redwoods would have to severely contest that idea. WTF does that even mean? Too bad you can’t grow redwoods in the desert I guess?
    - jakear 3y ago
      Please provide a reference to the research discovering that wildfires are a necessarily “bad thing” in deserts across bio-geologic timescales.
      - ses1984 3y ago
        If a fire burns down your house, it's ok because it doesn't matter on bio-geologic timescales, right? You're the one bringing the idea of bio-geologic timescales to an issue that is having an impact right now.
        jakear 3y ago
        Yes, my house matters not at all, on any timescale. Even less because I’m homeless.
      - seattle_spring 3y ago
        The onus is, without a doubt, on you to provide research supporting your initial claims here.
UncleEntity 3y ago
> What makes you say it’s damaging? They say it’s damaging because it promotes wildfires which kill off the other plants. Of course it’s a moral judgment because Nature has no moral framework. You may be fine in letting “native” species go extinct but others obviously don’t share your opinion and go out of the way to prevent it.
- jakear 3y ago
  I already mentioned the Western Juniper, a “native” plant which the USFWS actively finances burning. A moral framework where some native species need heaven and earth moved for them to not be burned while other native species need taxpayer dollars to finance their combustion isn’t very appealing to me. Live and let live, I say.
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    > Juniperus occidentalis, known as the western juniper, is a shrub or tree native to the Western United States… Since you obviously don’t understand how these plants have adapted themselves and the role of wildfires to western living I’d suggest, maybe, doing a little research on the subject. I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns.
    - jakear 3y ago
      What is it you think I don’t understand, taking into account I have volunteered months of my time on USFWS refuges engaged in the active burning of the Western Juniper, and have conversed at length with biologists involved in the management of said refuges? And have read literal textbooks on said Species. And read hundred+ page reports on the plans for managing said species. > I’m also 100% certain the goal isn’t to actually combust the trees in prescribed burns. I’m glad you stated it so plainly, as I can be equally certain you’re dead wrong.
      - kylewatson 3y ago
        This weed is growing in the low valley, not where junipers are growing. There are about 4000ft of difference here. The article shows Carefree AZ as an example of infestation, which is at 2400ft. Junipers grow at 6000ft. I can't believe you're really trying to make the argument that this plant is great because it will burn saguaros or barrel cactuses and we burn juniper on purpose so that must be good for saguaros and barrel cactuses. Don't get defensive. I'm not upset at you. Just think about this argument. It's not a logical argument. You're saying that if X is good for Y and B causes X' for Z, then B is good. But you have not established that X' is good for Z, and you haven't established that B causes X for Y. So if this plant doesn't cause fires for Junipers, and if fires aren't good for desert plants, then how the hell are you arguing this plant is good because it causes fires for desert plants? Don't take my word for it. Ask ChatGPT if this makes any damned sense. Maybe the matrix can convince you that this is an illogical argument.
seattle_spring 3y ago
Have any reputable literature to share that backs up your opinion?
- jakear 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    About as relevant as citing the Bible, with respect to this discussion.
    - jakear 3y ago
      Environmental pressure leads to adaptation and speciation. I don’t know what more evidence you want of my claim that a new pressure isn’t necessarily bad for general “quantity” of speciation.
kylewatson 3y ago
It is damaging. The Sonoran Desert is home to plants and animals not found anywhere else on earth. The desert is alive. It is not just some sand in between freeways and stucco houses. These plants spread rapidly and cause more frequent and hotter fires than any that the native plants have evolved with. Just because sometimes fire is good for some life forms does not mean all fire is good for all life forms. I can't believe I even have to explain this to someone. Damn. Some of you just want to argue to argue. Go ask chatgpt to argue with you, or ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else. leave the rest of us alone. damn.
- jakear 3y ago
  > ask google maps for directions and then drive somewhere else Alright that was pretty funny. For the rest of it, if all you’re going to do is be mad about making the same (unsupported) “the only correct action is that which minimizes dEnvironment/dt” (aka “native=good, introduced=bad”) claim as everyone else, why bother commenting at all?
  - kylewatson 3y ago
    It's not just that they are native, it's that they are unique to that location. You are not going to get many people - other than the idealogical zealots like you - to agree that things that can eliminate a species from the planet are a good thing. You probably side with the Rhino Poachers too, because the invisible hand of the free market values boner powder.

goatlover 3y ago

The idea of invasive centers on the notion that ecosystems are largely static. But the reality is the environment is dynamic and always changing, with or without humans. Life has always migrated all over the place. There is no ideal state of nature. There's no lasting equilibrium. Yes, humans speed change by giving species a ride to other places. But a new dynamic will be achieved.

jakear 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Lutger 3y ago

It is worth noting because it brings more self awareness. The 'weedness' of the plant is a property of human culture, and it is worth exploring what that is. It doesn't mean the 'weedness' doesn't exist: there are many reason we don't like a plant and want to destroy certain plants and some are quite valid, like fire hazards for example. For example, you quote non-nativeness as a self-evident negative property of the plant. But this is highly debatable. It is not clear at all what nativeness means in the plant world (really) or if it really is undesirable. There are some common ideas around being 'not beneficial to biodiversity' for example, but it turns out plants are relatively quick to adapt and gain relationships. Dismissing these perspectives as non-sequitur and not worth exploring isn't really contributing to an insightful discussion. I'm not saying weeds are good or something like that, I just want to convince you this actually is worth noting and exploring.

onlypositive 3y ago
It's not worth noting. There is quite a few people in this thread arguing for the sake of arguing about what a weed is in a thread about a very serious weed taking over very large swaths of habitat. It's kind of disgusting.
- goatlover 3y ago
  It's not disgusting. It's a question of how we view nature. The idea that we can just preserve ecosystems as they were isn't very tenable. The idea that invasive species don't deserve to be invasive is questionable. We're making all these value judgements about what nature and shouldn't be. But nature has always changed, just depends on the time scale. And life has always spread into new areas and become invasive. We did so migrating out of Africa. So does an ant colony floating on a log to an island that didn't have ants before. Life colonized the oceans, then it colonized the lands, and it colonizes new islands that popup, and populations shift around as the climate changes and new migration routes become available. The Sahara was a savanna thousands of years ago.
  - onlypositive 3y ago