Comments on: Are Human-Caused Ecological Invasions Good for Evolution and Diversity? http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/are-human-caused-ecological-invasions-good-for-evolution-and-diversity/ Musings on Nature, Science, Evolution, Biology, and Education Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:31:55 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Ghost slugs invade Britain? « It’s Alive!! http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/are-human-caused-ecological-invasions-good-for-evolution-and-diversity/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Ghost slugs invade Britain? « It’s Alive!! Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:50:01 +0000 http://biochemicalsoul.com/?p=412#comment-499 [...] hailing from Georgia and eastern Turkey), it is being assumed that it is an introduced species. Invasive species can be rather destructive to native island ecosystems, which the UK still [...] [...] hailing from Georgia and eastern Turkey), it is being assumed that it is an introduced species. Invasive species can be rather destructive to native island ecosystems, which the UK still [...]

]]> By: Christie http://biochemicalsoul.com/2008/09/are-human-caused-ecological-invasions-good-for-evolution-and-diversity/comment-page-1/#comment-216 Christie Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:41:15 +0000 http://biochemicalsoul.com/?p=412#comment-216 I always find it a bit curious that we consider our own impacts 'unnatural' simply because we are capable of being conscious of them. When plants evolved and took over the land, for example, they completely changed the entire planet. Land, sea, air - they changed EVERYTHING, leading to unfathomable changes in ecosystems and species. How come their effects are natural and ours are not? If a new species like that evolved now and started taking over, would we let it? Or would we try to erradicate it and preserve what is in place? Isn't it possible we ARE that kind of species, one that is simply a lot more 'successful' than others and changes the composition of the globe because of it? And is it really 'unnatural' for us to do so? I don't think that conservation is bad (I personally consider myself a conservationist), I just think it's very interesting how people put ourselves on a completely different plane, as if we weren't products of evolution ourselves. And should we really discriminate against species that happen to have evolved the successful strategy of being spread by us? Take mice, for example. Hugely successful because some of them a long long time ago decided people meant food, and managed to be smart enough to stow away on our ships and wagons. Shouldn't we applaud their amazing evolutionary success and adaptability instead of lament their impacts on native fauna? If they were spread by whales or hurricanes somehow instead of ships, would we think differently of them? I don't really have an answer, either. I just think it's very interesting how we look at what we do and our environmental impacts. Why do we think that what we do is wrong and what happens without our help is right? On a side note, have you ever read Botany of Desire by Michael Pollard? Interesting look at coevolution of plants/people. I always find it a bit curious that we consider our own impacts ‘unnatural’ simply because we are capable of being conscious of them. When plants evolved and took over the land, for example, they completely changed the entire planet. Land, sea, air – they changed EVERYTHING, leading to unfathomable changes in ecosystems and species. How come their effects are natural and ours are not? If a new species like that evolved now and started taking over, would we let it? Or would we try to erradicate it and preserve what is in place? Isn’t it possible we ARE that kind of species, one that is simply a lot more ’successful’ than others and changes the composition of the globe because of it? And is it really ‘unnatural’ for us to do so?

I don’t think that conservation is bad (I personally consider myself a conservationist), I just think it’s very interesting how people put ourselves on a completely different plane, as if we weren’t products of evolution ourselves. And should we really discriminate against species that happen to have evolved the successful strategy of being spread by us? Take mice, for example. Hugely successful because some of them a long long time ago decided people meant food, and managed to be smart enough to stow away on our ships and wagons. Shouldn’t we applaud their amazing evolutionary success and adaptability instead of lament their impacts on native fauna? If they were spread by whales or hurricanes somehow instead of ships, would we think differently of them?

I don’t really have an answer, either. I just think it’s very interesting how we look at what we do and our environmental impacts. Why do we think that what we do is wrong and what happens without our help is right?

On a side note, have you ever read Botany of Desire by Michael Pollard? Interesting look at coevolution of plants/people.

]]>