4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoTrue, 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 agoThat process takes a very long time, much longer than it takes for things that exist today to go extinct
- kbelder 3y agoWhen 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 agoOh never mind, I guess mass extinction is fine then.
- jakear 3y agoIndeed it is. Every biological renaissance in known history was preceded by a mass extinction event.
- emodendroket 3y agoIf 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 agoIt 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 agoHey 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.
- jakear 3y agoAh. The non-sequitur approach to debate. Charming. If you can’t see the difference between allowing a plant to naturally spread and mass murder, I pray for those around you.
- 3y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoRead the article. It's aggressive growth chokes out other plants and creates a fire hazard that isn't present with natives.
- jakear 3y agoSo 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 agoPlease provide a reference to the research discovering that wildfires are a necessarily “bad thing” in deserts across bio-geologic timescales.
- ses1984 3y agoIf 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 agoYes, my house matters not at all, on any timescale. Even less because I’m homeless.
- seattle_spring 3y agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoWhat 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 agoThis 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 agoHave any reputable literature to share that backs up your opinion?
- jakear 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species
- seattle_spring 3y agoAbout as relevant as citing the Bible, with respect to this discussion.
- jakear 3y agoEnvironmental 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 agoIt 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 agoIt'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.