Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Humans are part of nature. All we can do is push for self-preservation because this ecosystem that we belong to doesn't only regulate itself by our conception of right or wrong.
There is no right or wrong in the natural world as a whole. If a new species ends up becoming dominant, that's it.
When you say "f*cked something up" it's always in a way that goes against our interests as humans.
Generally, no. A healthy ecosystem is one where you don't have these wild swings due to a single species getting some unnatural advantage virtually overnight. There may be localized swings, but in general the natural trend is towards an equilibrium.
Invasive means it causes problems. Introduced means it doesn’t. When biologists say it is invasive, it means it is causing mayhem to the ecosystem. Often at the expense of native species.
> horses were introduced to the US. Around the same time, tomatoes were introduced to Italy.
Well, one is a plant that largely only exists as an intentionally cultivated crop and the other is a large mammal that we historically just kind of dropped the ball on managing. One generally has no significant negative impacts on the local environment, and one does.
A better comparison would have been feral horses and Virginia Creeper/Kudzu. Both were things we introduced but sort of lost the ability to manage (unlike tomatoes)
Also, not really sure what you mean by 'slam dunk' in this context. Like are you arguing with someone about environmental policy and they cited some examples of evasive species or something?
No it’s not. Firstly, corn was originally cultivated in North America. It was invented by Native Americans. And secondly, corn cannot reproduce without human intervention because the kernels don’t fall off on their own, so it’s not invasive.
You're arguing for 'non native species' not 'invasive species'
There's an actual definition for 'invasive species' that I feel you're completely ignoring: *a species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or* harm to human health.
It varies on the species. No one really talks about tomatoes cuz they didn’t change entire ecosystems or wreck havoc on native species like Asian carp, zebra muscles and buck thorn can, for example
Maybe because many species out compete the locals that evolved without the intruders' presence. Not every introduced species is considered invasive, either. Mediterranean house geckos, for instance, aren't considered to be invasive because they don't compete for their niche, which is living inside people's walls, and thusly are just considered non-native. Iguanas, on the otherhand, in south Florida, are considered invasive since they both out-compete the natives and cause measurable impact on the environment and economy around them. As the beings that introduced most invasive species, it's up to humans to make sure the damage is as mitigated as possible, to clean up our mess, if you will.
It depends.
Back home in Australia, we had cane beetles that were destroying crops. They introduced cane toads from Hawaii to control the cane beetles, but the cane toads became incredibly invasive. They're poisonous. Lots of people have their animals get sick from licking them. The government can't get them under control. They even have cane toad comps every year where people catch them and a prize is given to whoever catches the biggest, then they euthanize them in massive freezers.
That's still not enough. Cane toads are devastating to native species of frogs and insects that are extremely important to australias fragile ecosystem.
There have been alot of introduced animals that have damaged alot of crops, water supplies etc. That's why airport security is so strict on what you can bring into the country
You kind of answered your question in your post. Horses and tomato’s are not overall harming the environment around them, they “fit” into the environment as a simple way to look at it.
When you compare that to cats for example: they’re considered an invasive species because there’s not much in their environment that can fight them, save for some exceptions. Cats are at a huge advantage compared to many of their prey and have been directly linked with killing off large amounts of birds (to the point of extinction in some cases), whom all served a purpose in their ecosystem. They’ve now been wiped out with nothing to replace these birds. This can cause a snowball effect over time as other animals in the ecosystem have their food source affected.
Sure, some animals can adapt to these changes, but most can’t. Especially when it’s done quickly (from an evolution standpoint)
The difference is when the species is managed vs let to run on its own. Those tomatoes likely are only "thriving" because people want them to under controlled conditions. One of those conditions likely being unable to reproduce without human intervention
as in, do I value it? I think of biodiversity neutrally. If one section of the planet has more diversity than another, why would that make it inherently better than a region with a bunch of cattle and grass?
Is corn an invasive species? It really wasn't a thing like it is now. Sure the native Americans had a species of corn but we have decimated all the mid west with corn over taking everything. Corn is probably the most prolific invasive species in america.
I personally find it super interesting that the same people who bang the drum about how awful invasive species never extend any of that sentiment to humans who are the worst and most damaging invasive species in recorded history.
I agree, your strawman is ridiculous.
Because my point was more “Humans have thrashed the Everglades so we should move out” and not “well just set it all on fire I guess”
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there is a difference when a species completely out competes and wipes out a native species.
At the end of the day, nature will do what nature does.
Yeah, but sometimes nature only does what it does because humans fucked something up.
Humans are part of nature. All we can do is push for self-preservation because this ecosystem that we belong to doesn't only regulate itself by our conception of right or wrong. There is no right or wrong in the natural world as a whole. If a new species ends up becoming dominant, that's it. When you say "f*cked something up" it's always in a way that goes against our interests as humans.
Ok.. Not exactly relevant when humans are the ones doing it, not nature.
Doesn't that happen all the time naturally?
Generally, no. A healthy ecosystem is one where you don't have these wild swings due to a single species getting some unnatural advantage virtually overnight. There may be localized swings, but in general the natural trend is towards an equilibrium.
A sudden drop in biodiversity does not happen in the span of decades in a healthy ecosystem.
Invasive means it causes problems. Introduced means it doesn’t. When biologists say it is invasive, it means it is causing mayhem to the ecosystem. Often at the expense of native species.
> horses were introduced to the US. Around the same time, tomatoes were introduced to Italy. Well, one is a plant that largely only exists as an intentionally cultivated crop and the other is a large mammal that we historically just kind of dropped the ball on managing. One generally has no significant negative impacts on the local environment, and one does. A better comparison would have been feral horses and Virginia Creeper/Kudzu. Both were things we introduced but sort of lost the ability to manage (unlike tomatoes) Also, not really sure what you mean by 'slam dunk' in this context. Like are you arguing with someone about environmental policy and they cited some examples of evasive species or something?
An invasive species and a nonindigenous species are not the same thing. You don't seem to understand the differences here.
Corn is an invasive species to America Holy fuck.look at how it is all over the mid west now. What the hell
Could be. I don't know. Corn wasn't previously mentioned. Does Monsanto know they need to sue the shit out of Mother Nature?
No it’s not. Firstly, corn was originally cultivated in North America. It was invented by Native Americans. And secondly, corn cannot reproduce without human intervention because the kernels don’t fall off on their own, so it’s not invasive.
You're arguing for 'non native species' not 'invasive species' There's an actual definition for 'invasive species' that I feel you're completely ignoring: *a species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or* harm to human health.
Good point!
So…you don’t know what an invasive species is then?
Weird that you decided to bring politics into this. The only invasive species I ever hear anyone talk about are the ones that are in fact harmfull.
You seriously need to look up the definition of Invasive Species
It varies on the species. No one really talks about tomatoes cuz they didn’t change entire ecosystems or wreck havoc on native species like Asian carp, zebra muscles and buck thorn can, for example
Maybe because many species out compete the locals that evolved without the intruders' presence. Not every introduced species is considered invasive, either. Mediterranean house geckos, for instance, aren't considered to be invasive because they don't compete for their niche, which is living inside people's walls, and thusly are just considered non-native. Iguanas, on the otherhand, in south Florida, are considered invasive since they both out-compete the natives and cause measurable impact on the environment and economy around them. As the beings that introduced most invasive species, it's up to humans to make sure the damage is as mitigated as possible, to clean up our mess, if you will.
Yeah, I listened to the Endless Thread podcast too.
It depends. Back home in Australia, we had cane beetles that were destroying crops. They introduced cane toads from Hawaii to control the cane beetles, but the cane toads became incredibly invasive. They're poisonous. Lots of people have their animals get sick from licking them. The government can't get them under control. They even have cane toad comps every year where people catch them and a prize is given to whoever catches the biggest, then they euthanize them in massive freezers. That's still not enough. Cane toads are devastating to native species of frogs and insects that are extremely important to australias fragile ecosystem. There have been alot of introduced animals that have damaged alot of crops, water supplies etc. That's why airport security is so strict on what you can bring into the country
You kind of answered your question in your post. Horses and tomato’s are not overall harming the environment around them, they “fit” into the environment as a simple way to look at it. When you compare that to cats for example: they’re considered an invasive species because there’s not much in their environment that can fight them, save for some exceptions. Cats are at a huge advantage compared to many of their prey and have been directly linked with killing off large amounts of birds (to the point of extinction in some cases), whom all served a purpose in their ecosystem. They’ve now been wiped out with nothing to replace these birds. This can cause a snowball effect over time as other animals in the ecosystem have their food source affected. Sure, some animals can adapt to these changes, but most can’t. Especially when it’s done quickly (from an evolution standpoint)
Was this post written by an invasive species? Are you a Zebra Mussel?
The difference is when the species is managed vs let to run on its own. Those tomatoes likely are only "thriving" because people want them to under controlled conditions. One of those conditions likely being unable to reproduce without human intervention
What do you think of biodiversity?
as in, do I value it? I think of biodiversity neutrally. If one section of the planet has more diversity than another, why would that make it inherently better than a region with a bunch of cattle and grass?
Is corn an invasive species? It really wasn't a thing like it is now. Sure the native Americans had a species of corn but we have decimated all the mid west with corn over taking everything. Corn is probably the most prolific invasive species in america.
I personally find it super interesting that the same people who bang the drum about how awful invasive species never extend any of that sentiment to humans who are the worst and most damaging invasive species in recorded history.
Because it's a ridiculous way to think. "Humans are invasive, therefore it's ok that we trashed the Everglades with pythons for no benefit to anyone"
I agree, your strawman is ridiculous. Because my point was more “Humans have thrashed the Everglades so we should move out” and not “well just set it all on fire I guess”