4 ms·
It isn't that we're 'invasive' in relation to nature, it's that we're 'invasive' by our own definitions of the word. For what it's worth, the beaver that force
by bmelton 13y ago
It isn't that we're 'invasive' in relation to nature, it's that we're 'invasive' by our own definitions of the word.
For what it's worth, the beaver that forces out native species by flooding a habitat is both natural and invasive. Beavers are considered, by humans, to be a fairly invasive species, especially when introduced to areas they are not native to.
It isn't a double-standard that we're applying, it's just a little uncomfortable when the same standard is applied to us.
- refurb 13y agoThere isn't an animal out there that doesn't have some impact on it's environment. Humans are no different.
- bmelton 13y agoI don't disagree, but there are species that invariably have more impact on their environment than others, and those species with inordinate amounts of impact on their environments, or nominal impacts in their native environment with non-nominal impacts in non-native environments are defined as 'invasive'. We fit our definition for the term. Like I said before though, I don't see anything unnatural about it myself.
- dasil003 13y agoI don't have a problem being invasive per se, but if we eventually change the environment such that we have a very difficult time surviving (which seems a realistic possibility the long term) then I'd say we're a pretty poor species.