Awesome! I loved seeing Hank on Nature League, even though this isn't a channel he's normally on. Wait, does this mean Hank Green is an invasive species?
And you, making puns on so many differents channels, could you be one? Also? Didn't you made a pun on the bad habit video? It's like you didn't. I tried the tell you the jole I want to do, then delete the comment thing, but it looks like you were not able to see it.
@@sapphirII Yeah, I guess I could be invasive... or parasitic! I never got the notification :( I thought it would have worked. I have an anonymous email: fredcrowley93 at gmail dot com If you want to use that. (no, my name is not Fred lol)
Hank Green can definitely be classed as an invasive species here on TH-cam He appeared first with his brother on a single channel, then appeared in a single crash course Within months had spread into multiple crash courses and started creeping onto other channels From there he has exploded onto many many new independent and PBS channels Every month he seems to pop up on a different channel At this point, you could randomly pick any video on TH-cam and you would have a 50/50 chance of picking one with Hank Green in it ;) His energy and drive to educate people watching his videos though is infectious and fun That's why we all love Hank and don't mind this invasion, so it's all good :)
This was a great episode! I could listen to you two talk for a long time. I really enjoyed the back and forth and how much philosophical thought is involved in this issue.
Part of invasive species management is about maintaining global biodiversity. It is true that in some instances local diversity increases (although that isn't typically the case), but invasive species forcing other species to extinction decreases biodiversity worldwide. I get the impression that Brit doesn't mind loss of biodiversity as long as there is a species feeling a given niche. There are so many reasons to maintain species diversity, OMG, I am going to stop before I write an essay. Great topic!
Awesome point about global numbers...the only counterpoint is when introgression leads to speciation, though this isn't exactly rampant. There ARE so many reasons to maintain species diversity, and we've talked about it on this channel- I only bring up the ideas with Hank so that we can know why we personally want to maintain it. For Hank, it might have to do with entropy...for me, it has to do with intrinsic worth and general values. I just want everyone really critically examining all the arguments, for and against. Thanks for the excellent point! -Brit
LOL, "Zebra muscles (mussels) are a huge problem for hydroelectric plants." I looked up from the game I was playing expecting to see an image of a very buff zebra muscling into the plant.
@@natureleague wow my favorite Scishow psych host noticed me. Please know you're all a blessing and have re-inspired me to go back to school and get more into ecology and learning more everyday Thank you.
I think that we need to protect species from extinction if we are the cause of it. If the cause is just the natural processes of evolution, then we do not need to interfere. On the other hand, if a species is approaching extinction because humans took their habitat we are morally obliged to help the animals endangered.
Fixing the problem results in perpetuating a new problem. We do have invasives that directly threaten local diversity. Local regions are seeing an explosion of climbing and fruiting vines. Such things are given ever method to spread starting with birds and humans. That i can not offer a better food stuff to birds or discourage the few people who are disinterested stopping aggressive plants from devastating forest and brush lands means the ecology i grew up with is being silently endangered.
I want to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation. We also treat native species as if they were invasive. Also species that move on their own can be invasive (birds and fish). The double breasted cormerant is native to southern Canada and most USA but most of Ontario (residents) thinks they are invasive and the mnrf is passing a law to cull the birds. Mostly because the birds are moving more north as it gets warmer and are destroying shoreline habitat
Totally- we refer to harmful native species as "pests" or "noxious" or "nuisance" etc. However, we can't as easily eradicate these individuals legally as it is to go and hunt pythons down in Florida. Awesome point about climate change...some species are undergoing range expansion simply due to this, and as it's "natural dispersion", it'd be hard to argue that migrating individuals are "non-native". It's so confusing and absurd and ahhhh!!! Thank you for the wrench :) -Brit
interesting thought from Hank, this limiting entropy. I am not saying that it isn't fundamentally consistent, but one could argue that he shouldn't push this idea too far forward though. Reason: The mental reduction of morality to a fight against entropy could lead to a mental reduction of individual phenomena and by extension individual moral items(moral dilemmas, agents, patients and the like). Tl;dr: Perhaps the illusion of individual moral agents and patients is better at achieving less entropy than the realisation that less entropy is the goal.
If the metric is simply "life", then invasive species are not a problem. If there's any distinction between types of life, then there's a value judgement about preferences for one type of life or another, or relationships among lives. The more distinctions among types of lives or their relationships, the more value judgments there have to be. So there's value judgments all over the place as we consciously connect with the world around us. And plenty of policy conflict. I'm in favor of protecting genetic diversity, because it provides greater resilience of ecosystems (including energy flows and environmental processes) in the face of extremes. Species that are rare because they persist in a niche environment, or because they are the last of their kind, have more 'value' than species that are 'invasive' across many environments. Once the genetics of the rare species are lost, it's lost for good. So 'invasive' species that put rare species at risk are a problem, in my view. Beyond protecting rare species, I'm in favor of protecting ecosystem processes. So an 'invasive' species that kick out key species or unravel a lot of ecosystem processes are problem 'invasives'. That would include 'invasive' species that change an area's fire regime or river and groundwater hydrology. Anyway, that's my value judgement. It's one reason I encourage folks to harvest the edible invasive species in their areas. Foraging helps folks connect to their local environment - and appreciate how habitat loss and invasive species are more serious threats than picking wild plants and mushrooms.
Excellent points. These questions are values all the way down, FOR SURE. I instinctually want to agree with the idea of valuing rarity, but when I break it down I find it harder to support. Like, I personally love rare species, but I don't know that there's a utility argument for rareness aside from evolutionary potential of certain genes. Anyways, thanks for your thoughts!! -Brit
As an undergrad doing research with invasive plants, I think this is a great discussion. Our lab meetings have delved into this kind of philosophy and it always fascinates me! Thanks for talking about this.
Fun conversation. I as I have grown up, I have grown to find grey much more interesting than black or white. BTW, Here is Oregon, there is a love/hate with Blackberries. They are super tasty and super invasive; and, I think birds are the bigger culprit regarding their spread. Note: One of the most loved berries in Oregon is the Marionberry - which, i believe, was bred from the un-beloved Blackberry. Humans are so complicated ;)
I live in South Dakota, our state bird is the non-native Ring-Necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Some of the local economy relys on pheasant hunting and related activities. An interesting example of how "invasive" species has a lot to do with economics! I have to giggle to myself a little every time the news reports that the pheasant population is not doing so well.
This is one of my favorite topics to geek out on! Some resources I've found helpful in thinking about this topic. Beyond the War on Invasive Species: A Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration This book is pretty straightforwardly against the conventional definitions on invasion biology by a practicing permaculture farmer/former ecosystem restoration manager. Staying with the Trouble by Donna Harraway I feel like if you ever find yourself using the term athropocene in conversation on a regular basis, you should have to read some Donna Harraway.
16:15 Diversity can be achieved by random mutations in the genome of a species. The problem would be the threshold of mutation/extinction, life will find a way to hold on unless it is wiped out before adapting.
I have a lot of problems with this discussion. Being careful about non-native species has nothing to do with xenophobia. I’ve never heard a more ridiculous idea. For the hundreds of years that Americans have been truly xenophobic on the whole, we have also been importing hundreds of non-native plants from around the world. The Tree of Heaven, highly invasive tree to the east coast of the US, was introduced in Philadelphia in 1784 when the imitation of Asian Art was popular in Europe and the United States. I don’t think many of those same ‘high-class’ Anglo-Saxon folks would have wanted many Chinese people themselves coming into their country. The folks who support native species are the environmentalist-types who, in my experience, are the least likely of anyone to be xenophobic. Also ridiculous is the idea that because humans are “natural” it is okay to bring invasive species wherever we please, as fast as we please. What makes the creation of diverse ecosystems before human influence more natural than what has recently been happening is the slow speed at which the spread of species would have happened with the help of birds, insects, and other pollinators, instead of a plane that brings a species into an ecosystem far faster that the area is able to evolve, adapt, and prepare for it. If an insect species slowly spreads across a continent over hundreds of years as would have happened in old times, chances are the tree species it preys upon will have sufficient time to evolve that some resistant variety of the tree will come into being soon enough. Such is not the case with the American chestnut tree, which has been all but eradicated by by the Southeast Asian Chestnut blight. This is in general a very bad attitude to be propagating about invasive species. Negative outcomes are usually the reality of a species being introduced into another location where it is accustomed to the climate, but does not have to deal with the predators which usually keep its population in check. This often results in its takeover of an ecosystem and the displacement of the native species whose predators live there to keep it from dominating. Invasive species cost my home state of Virginia $120 billion in damage each year-their effects are far from neutral. Sure, not all non-native species have ended up hurting local ecosystems, but as many have done so, we should approach them with an air of caution and only import them when needed for food or otherwise. Most environmental problems in existence started with humans altering a natural system in a way that we didn’t think would turn out harmful. Another important reason to be planting and supporting native species instead of non-natives is the preservation of distinct ecosystems in different parts of the world. If we continue to import and support any type of non-native wildlife that can live in a given climate but originated a whole ocean away, all of the differences between ecosystems across similar climates on our beautiful planet will be virtually lost. If both East Asia and North America boast many varieties of East Asian and North American wildlife, both places lose what makes them ecologically unique. Far from xenophobia, we should treat wildlife with the respect of leaving it to the places and people where it came from. Why should I feel the liberty to go to my mother’s home country of Iran to purchase and import a plane tree to the states because it boasts an interesting yellow bark? The spread of this species here would rob the Iranian forests and landscape of a fascinating characteristic which makes it unique from where I live.
I love this. It has provoked thoughts I have never had before. I'm constantly surprised by the information that can be hidden from us in plain sight. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
Australia has a range of invasive species that range from cute to ugly. Cane toads, rabbits, brumbys, water buffalo, camels and more. People are often devised depending on the species. We all hate cane roads, while brumbys are decisive because people love horses.
we should gaurd native ecosystems until we sequence all things there to not lost compounds produced by them. Totally humanocentric, but this is my argument for keeping the invasive species list.
can't we agree monocultures are vulnerable to becoming extinct, and if those monocultures kill everything first, then nothing rises up *in a timely manner* - to fill in the gaps which support other critters (and us)
Want to minimise habitat loss and have a child; consider adoption, you will be helping a person who already exists and making less mouths for the planet to feed.
Love this conversation. I often try to convey to others that just because a plant is non-native does not automatically mean that it's bad, and in fact in many cases can provide benefits to a local ecosystem. I find this especially to be true in urban environments, which are totally "unnatural" spaces to begin with; how can a plant be native to a place that didn't exist 100-200 years ago? I also resonated with Hank's comment that "entropy is the only thing to fight". As a collections curator at a museum of natural history, the idea of preserving what will inevitably disappear is at the very heart of what we do, and I do think this applies to all human endeavor, including how we manage our own lives. I think it's interesting that you both were concerned about being overly philosophical, because I think almost any law or policy, when examined closely, is rooted in some sort of philosophical or moral belief, and I really enjoyed getting to hear those perspectives. So thank you Brit and Hank! Love the work you are doing.
Once Ireland was an island it never has snakes. Ireland has very few mammals, amphibians, fish (freshwater) or reptiles : ( By the way St. Patrick was Welsh, he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and used as a slave.
One species that is not legal in the U.S. is the Tanuki (Raccoon Dog). They strike me as a very fascinating mammal and I would like to see the laws relaxed in relation to them. For example would it be possible to bring neutered Tanukis into the U.S?
I've been working on a large area of Cape Ivy. It's so large that it kills everything in the area. It overtops trees, shrubs, everything. Then small pieces break off and go down stream. YST is another example, not good for forage, anything,
I don’t normally engage with videos on TH-cam but invasive species are something I am passionate about, and I have had similar arguments with coworkers on many occasions. I must say, I agree with Hank’s arguments over Brit’s in almost every scenario. If she is playing devil's advocate, I apologize. I believe people have a responsibility to conserve our natural world, including our biodiversity, this involves attempting to correct some of our many wrongs to our natural resources. Spotted Knapweed and Cheatgrass don’t just impact range health for livestock grazing- they pose a real threat to prairie and sagebrush diversity. I do think the Westslope Cutthroat, Apache trout, or one of the many other native trout species are worth saving from introduced populations of trout, hydroelectric projects, and overexploitation of water resources. Phragmites absolutely impacts wetland plant and animal diversity, no question, not even debatable. I can’t follow the logic that because we introduced the Pythons to Florida that they now should be allowed to live and expand, I also understated we will never eradicate them. Ecologists and wildlife managers primary concern is the species and not the individual, I got the impression Brit was often on the side of the individual. I believe people have an obligation to reduce and whenever possible correct our negative impacts on the environment. I believe in conservation over preservation, and I believe in sustainable harvest of plants and animals from our landscape. We have always been part of nature, so as long as we are not having a negative impact on the resource let's continue to harvest from our oceans, consume wild animal protein, and sustainably log our forests. Finally, I do agree loss of available habitat, especially with our ever increasing population is the largest single issue.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I would actually _not_ consider humans an invasive species: We and several of our close relatives overcame the geographic boundaries of our original habitat by evolving sentience, an adaptation so effective it rendered the selective pressures exerted by most environments on land largely irrelevant. Technically it's probably more accurate to call us a _cosmopolitan species_ instead, like what crows and ospreys are for example; Just like those two our species spread through gradual spontaneous dispersal, resulting in near-global distribution - not because of a sweepstakes dispersal event - which is how monkeys got to South America, just to name one - but through our ability to live almost anywhere and natural population growth. A species can be both, sure, but "invasive species" suggest something that was introduced across the boundaries of it's natural range artificially or through a rare natural event rather than it simply being unfazed by geographic boundaries by virtue of it's inherent characteristics.
They only become "invasive" because of humans. Otherwise, they already would have invaded. But they can't because of oceans or whatever. In the past, there are cases of species coming into an ecosystem because climate changed or whatever, but in all current cases we're talking about species invading due to humans.
As natural beings we invented technology. Wouldn't that mean it's natural for us to use technology? So then wouldn't it be natural for us to move spices around with technology?
Okay Brit, I really like the way you explained your argument regarding biodiversity for its own sake or because it is something we "feel" is better. What I got from your words was that perhaps it is not necessarily a bad thing if life adapted a world with less species more capable of thriving in a world with humans. I think that while there is a very powerful sense of awe that comes from a world with a huge diversity of species because it truly does put in to perspective the many billion year organic project that is evolution. That being said, it's not as simple as wanting something a certain way because it's satisfying.
I'm starving for intelligent conversations like this I'd love to have someone I could talk to face to face about issues such as this Sadly everyone I know is either uninterested and/or dumb as a rock Jealous :/
Humans are invassive only in their ability to suddenly transfer their numbers at range in short time and that we have adapted and forcefully adapted other things to survive beyond the probabilities of animal like us. Common creatures over produce or scale their resources to an unviable amount. We've done this before but continue to find new ways of pushing beyond the possible.
Cool. I never thought of humans as an invasive species. With that thought, we could look at war as a survival technique. Wars are always fought because we want to, or because we have to.
As an Aussie, I have to point out the introduction of many species to this continent and how it hasn't been for the better. Some plant introductions, have remained where they were intended to be... in the home garden... and still brighten our world.
Thank you, I spent the whole episode thinking that this conversation would be completely different if it were between two Aussies. And yes that's a good point about some species remaining in home gardens. There are exotic species that grow outside their native area only due to human intervention but lack the ability to "invade" areas outside of cultivation (like olives which do super well in Western Australia but apart from living a while after cultivation has ceased, they don't spread out of control and out compete indigenous species). There should be a distinction between "invasive species" and "introduced species". There are plenty of introduced species such as goldfish that have not spread to wild water ways and are unlikely to, and they shouldn't be counted in the same list as foxes and rabbits, which outcompete and predate native species to (and past) the point of extinction. I just don't think this was a very well considered discussion and I don't know if it's a cultural thing between Americans and Australians, or that I simply don't agree with the personal opinions posed.
@@maeveburgess4553 Tilapia is a problem up here in northern Qld as it does out compete some of our native fish species. But it is really about perspective. Prickly Pear was introduced and went totally wild, taking over huge areas. Physical eradication was never going to work but control could, so Cactoblastis cactorum was bought in. Yes, there is still Prickly Pear, but it is no longer a MAJOR problem. There is an African terrestrial [ground] orchid that is considered a major problem as it out competes some of our Australian terrestrials. These are the "bad guy" examples and they came off the top of my head... trying to think of a "good guy" example and I am struggling. So perhaps Australia has a set of parameters due to its long isolation that makes it unique, much as with New Zealand.
@@maeveburgess4553 In my invasion ecology coursework, we spent almost a full month discussing cases in Australia. In no way do I minimize the damage you guys have undergone due to a handful of invasive species...plus, islands are definitely more susceptible. At least for us, there is a difference between invasive and introduced- invasive species are introduced species that cause harm. Anyway, I recognize the big issues in Australia, and that there's reason for concern. That said, the larger philosophical questions are still really important. -Brit
Its weird to think of knapweed is an invasive species elsewhere. Here in the uk its a too uncommon treat to find it growing wild and I've grown in in my garden as part of a native meadow.
A couple of points. First, humans are the only species on the planet that can INTENTIONALLY transplant another species. That doesn't make us un-natural. Second, if we believe in evolution, then there is no such thing as "native" as all species will eventually exist on any other place on the planet, "naturally". Third, I live in the southern region of the U.S. and the plant Kudzu is considered an invasive species. but it is a long viney plant... prefect for basket making... So, I have a point of view that if we only learned to use the plants, then we could grow to a better place. (granted, the same rule applied to animals stands up less so, but it's a start) Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. lol
This is a very interesting discussion. I'm not an expert, but I think I have some understanding of what the problem with "invasive" species is, when it comes to human intervention. Most natural ecosystems have factors that change them and they have to adapt to the changes, but when it comes to humans, we have the means to change things quickly and drastically without even intending to. So when we introduce a new species to a new area, especially if we have already disturbed that area a significant amount, that species has the potential to cause extinctions of other species, because we change things so fast that the environment doesn't have a chance to adapt to the changes at its normal pace. I think destruction of habitats is a key issue here as you say. I live in the suburbs and only a fraction of the land is left to grow wild, so the natural evolution of plants and insects doesn't happen as readily as it would in an undisturbed area. When I think of controlling invasive species, I think just slowing down the rate they spread is probably one of the best things we can do, to give ecosystems a chance to adapt to them. For instance, one of my friends talks about native insects evolving to eat non-native plants over a period of time, and it seems like if we could allow that to happen more, there would be less risk of species extinctions.
Yes, rate of change does matter, and it matters a lot. The only counterargument I'd suggest (only for the sake of logical/fun discourse) is epigenetics. We're learning that changes to organisms and populations can happen more rapidly than we'd expect due to Darwinian evolution alone. It's possible that epigenetic changes caused by environments could give species a quicker way to adapt. But honestly, who knows...this is a relatively infant field of research, but interesting nonetheless. -Brit
this video was so good. as someone who wants to go on to study conservation biology and/or ecology its very interesting to here from two people experienced in the field discuss the nuances of the subject. Thanks so much brit and hank!
This is a fantastic conversation that more people need to have and think about! You have addressed many of the issues I struggle with on this topic. There are no easy answers but the conversation is important.
Love this! Love hearing you talk... one note, my Dad (who grew up in Belfast) has said numerous times that St. Patrick driving the "snakes" out of Ireland was actually meaning driving the Pagans out of Ireland.
Fantastic discussion. Hilarious. Personally, if it's increasing biodiversity, it is a net gain for the world, so I don't care which particular species survive. I don't know if I would kill animals and to do it, but I certainly capture, sterilize and release (I mean, I wish we could keep all domestic cats indoors, but catch and release might be what we have to strive for) Basically, I'm with Hank on this, diversity is good. It would be nice if humans could reach a better efficiency. People living with relatively equal resources and being able to contribute their best, and not causing more damage than absolutely necessary.
It's not weird that as humans we separate the world into "artificial", meaning controlled by humans, and "natural", meaning not controlled by humans. "Artificial" and "natural" are of course anthropocentric concepts. And that's appropriate, because we are humans talking to other humans about using the institutions of human politics to influence the behaviour of other humans for the benefit (mostly) of humans. Human politics is necessarily anthropocentric because language only allows us to talk with other humans, not with members of other species. If we were ants discussing ant politics, we would separate the world into things controlled by ants, and everything else. But we're not ants. We're humans.
@@natureleague: Hmm, I actually kind of disagree. Or at least, I think it's a point that's worth thinking more about. (And the rest of this comment is primarily directed as a response to Oliver's words -- though a bit more to you at the end.) I think the thing that has the potential to be most problematic here is that while our _thinking_ is anthropocentric, our *_impact_* is anything but. I'm reminded of the intent vs impact idea within feminist, anti-racist, etc. circles. If you're not familiar, I'd encourage you to read the following, and probably for the first read I'd encourage you to be thinking in that context: everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/ But then, go back and read it again, thinking about the discussion from this video, and making appropriate substitutions as you read. Sure, if Hank walks down to South America with a fly in his hair (or whatever), he didn't _mean_ to bring an invasive species, but if that fly species somehow dominates in a new-to-it environment, wiping out a bunch of South American species (by bringing disease, or wiping out a competitor in an ecological niche, or whatever), well... Hank may not be a speciesist, but the _impact_ was an eradication of species. So... sure, we're humans, and we're subject to human-centric biases, because other humans are the easiest thing for us to relate to, since they're the closest things to us. But that doesn't let us off the hook for thinking about our impact. And it's not like we can't do so. There's plenty of good tradition of human cultures who thought deeply about their impact on the world in which they lived. Yet in modern "western" culture, we're largely willfully ignorant of it, or worse, disdainful of the environments and species we destroy. And I bet you those ants, if they're discussing ant politics, have both anteaters and humans among their agenda items. :-P Because those other species represent an existential threat to the ants, so they _have_ to pay attention. But for us, it's a point of privilege that we don't feel we have to think about the ants. I'm of the opinion, though, that we have a moral obligation to do so. And indeed, Hank and Brit are, in fact, doing so here. And that's wonderful to see. Whether or not these two specifically, or we more broadly, are getting all the details "right" (correct) or not, it's important (to me) that we be thinking about these things. And trying to reduce the harm that we inflict on others. And to bring the apparently-requisite bit of Harry Potter into it... we need "constant vigilance" on this point. (Hopefully a book 4 reference will do.) IMHO.
While I found the conversation interesting, it also sounded an awful lot like advocating in favor of invasive species, which I find both disturbing and very irresponsible. While it's true that the exact effect of a given species is not always black and white, there have been many invasive species which have been nothing short of an ecological disaster, and the last thing anyone should be doing, is downplaying the significance of the impact they can have on an entire ecosystem or downplaying the threat they can pose to native species.
"Invasive" by definition means causing some sort of harm, so I don't think either or us were intending on being in favor of things that cause harm. For me, though, it's important to ask why we value native species as much as we do, like your comment suggests. I also worry about demonizing these species that cause harm in the situation that humans are responsible for their introduction. Thanks for the thought, it's a very fair point! -Brit
@@natureleague I've been watching SciShow for years and SciShow Psyche since it began, and I've seen more than enough to believe you are both well meaning, generally well grounded in science, and a relatively credible source of information. I don't believe you would intentionally be in favor of anything harmful, which is partly why I commented about it. I'm not questioning your intent, and didn't mean to make it sound like I was. My concern is primarily only with the way that some of it sounded. It's an important issue, with potentially very serious environmental consequences, and not a topic I think should be at all ambiguous in that regard, because of the very real potential for ecological damage. SciShow in particular, I know has done several episodes on invasive species. I understand your concern about not wanting invasive species to be demonized, and it's a fair concern. I have no desire to see them demonized either. On a personal level, I happen to be quite fond of Burmese Pythons and Lionfish. I also find Snakehead fish fascinating. All 3 of them I know to be invasive species there in Florida, and have all caused ecological harm to the native species there. I'm sure there are others, those are just the 3 that I know of, off of the top of my head, because of my fondness for them. I'd be lying if I didn't say that part of me likes knowing that they are there, but I also know that they really don't belong there either, and their presence there has not been without significant consequences. They're all beautiful creatures in their own ways, but they really belong in their own natural habitats. I'm certain you already know that non-native species are introduced through any number of ways, whether it be as accidental stowaways, escapes from the food industry during some natural disaster, or as intentional releases. I don't know exactly how Burmese Pythons and Lionfish found their way into Florida, but they were both almost certainly introduced from the pet industry, whether they got loose during a hurricane or were intentionally released as unwanted pets by their previous owners. But I do know that many well meaning people do regularly try to release their unwanted pets, when they can no longer afford to care for them, or simply because they lost interest. They're often well meaning people with good intentions, that think they are doing their pet a favor, not realizing the harm their "good deed" can cause. I found the video topic very interesting, but these are the people I worry the most about getting the wrong message, and why I feel it's important as educators, to make sure that it's clear. Why do we value native species? I would ask, why do we value any species at all? Rhetorically, of course. I could say that we should value native species because every species has the right to exist, and in the case of native species it's their natural home, in most of those cases, it's the only home they have. Or I could say that every fiber of my being says it's the right thing to do. But I don't really like to try to justify a position based on my personal feelings or with moral arguments. So I will say that yes, life is always changing, but the balance of ecosystems have evolved over the course of tens of thousands to millions of years, and that balance can be easily disrupted when a non-native species is suddenly introduced. Most species can't adapt that quickly to environmental changes. Maybe the impact of a non-native introduction is minimal in some cases. But other times, especially a species with no natural predators, it can lead to the extinction of multiple other species and disrupt the entire natural balance of a habitat. It may be some minor species that barely anyone has noticed that goes extinct, and perhaps no one will notice it's missing. Then again, it may also be a critical keystone species, that causes the extinction of many other additional species as well, or the loss has some other unforeseen damage to the environment. The results are often unpredictable, and aren't usually know until it happens. Each habitat is unique and precious, and once a species is lost, it's usually gone forever, forever altering the balance of that ecosystem, and it's usually not for the better in most cases. It's not always about economics either. Just take a look at the results of the brittle starfish or the aquarium strain of Caulerpa Taxifolia, a macro algae, in the Mediterranean. In both cases, they don't just disrupt a single species, they can turn the entire aquatic landscape into an underwater desert. Or ask Guam and Hawaii how well snakes, rodents, and ants have worked out for their local bird populations, found no where else in the world, and many are already gone forever. Yes, they're islands, but the confined space of an island just accelerates the results. My point is, that unless we are prepared to accept the risk of an ecological collapse, accept the loss of entire natural habitats, or cement over the entire Earth and accept all that would entail, then I think we need to care about every native species we can. Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded, but it's a complicated topic.
I can see why the argument against invasive species based on the extinction of other animals is valid. If we are currently in a mass extinction era (totally our fault) it would make sense to try and mitigate as many extinctions as possible. If we weren't already killing off a bunch of species maybe it would be different.
Great discussion! Love Hank's philosophical reasoning about greater biodiversity being good because it more effectively slows entropy; that very premise could be a root for a moral system. I'm going to be thinking this one over for a while. Also, "snakes" are what the Catholics called Pagans and other non-Christians. "Driving out the snakes" sounds a lot more innocent than it was.
I agree with all of this. As the only ones capable of makeing a change, we owe it to all the life that we screwed over in the past by recreating habitats and promoting biodiversity. and so what if an invasive species is doing well or is a hybrid as long as there is enough other species there to compete and keep balance.
Yesterday I posted some questions about all this on your video from last week! This is a very bright and complex discussion of all this! - I still think it would maybe help the climate change discussion if we could make very clear, that we are talking about our human values and our human survival. - The earth doesn't care, who lives and who dies and who goes extinct. Climate change is really only about us humans. - Catastrophic change and mass extinction have happened before. They don't carry any intrinsic value or condemnation with them. That's just us. I disagree with Hank. I think that cyanobacteria, tardigrades, some fungi, some moulds and some bacteria are even more "intrusive" than we humans are. They literally live throughout the whole biosphere which we can't. Some of them even live inside us. Brit and Hank, thank you very much for this delightful brainfood video!
Oooh yes, lovely point about internal symbiosis and microbes. I've mentioned cyanobacteria before in terms of a single species causing some major issues for life on Earth (i.e., oxygenation)...it's something I think about a lot. The larger point, for me, is that we are conscious of cause and effect so hey, might as well talk about responsibility. Thanks so much for your comments! -Brit
Loved this video, invasive species and how humans affect wildlife is my jam. Anyone got recommendations on articles/books/videos that go more in depth on some of the stuff talked about?
I've definitely got a few, but it depends on the subject. What interests you the most within this topic? Definitions? Policy? Environmental philosophy? Ecology? -Brit
Fantastic episode!!! Loved having Hank on!!! I do have a question though, are birds considered not natural or invasive or are they not really categorized as that since they could naturally reach any place??
Great question! Birds, particularly migratory birds, have large "natural" ranges and are able to disperse great distances. I like to think of marine mammals and large pelagic fish like the great white shark as well. These species aren't considered non-native in their natural ranges, even though those ranges are massive. However, in locations where humans introduced certain bird species to places where they don't "naturally" disperse, those species would be considered non-native. The "invasive" title gets tacked on if they do some kind of harm. Hope this helps! -Brit
I wonder what you'd think about the idea of engineering organisms with the specific goal of preserving biodiversity. As you point out we focus on ourselves, but genetic diversity can certainly be considered a natural resource, don't you think?
Ooh, cool point- genetic diversity is TOTALLY a natural resource, and is actually referred to as such by several international NGOs. However, engineering organisms, or creating synthetic organisms, is a whole different conversation, as there are issues with how to classify those organisms (i.e., is this new thing critically endangered because there are only 10 of them? etc.) Valuing and protecting genetic diversity in general seems okay by me, but I begin to have issues when there are demarcations between native and non-native genetic diversity, as I feel like humans are drawing hypothetical lines. Anyways, awesome question! -Brit
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like Brit's pin, you can get the Nature League pin here! store.dftba.com/collections/nature-league/products/nature-league-enamel-pin
You pinned a comment about pins... pinception!
There's too many humans on the planet. Our population is out of control.
Awesome! I loved seeing Hank on Nature League, even though this isn't a channel he's normally on.
Wait, does this mean Hank Green is an invasive species?
And you, making puns on so many differents channels, could you be one?
Also? Didn't you made a pun on the bad habit video? It's like you didn't. I tried the tell you the jole I want to do, then delete the comment thing, but it looks like you were not able to see it.
@@sapphirII Yeah, I guess I could be invasive... or parasitic!
I never got the notification :( I thought it would have worked. I have an anonymous email: fredcrowley93 at gmail dot com
If you want to use that. (no, my name is not Fred lol)
Hank Green can definitely be classed as an invasive species here on TH-cam
He appeared first with his brother on a single channel, then appeared in a single crash course
Within months had spread into multiple crash courses and started creeping onto other channels
From there he has exploded onto many many new independent and PBS channels
Every month he seems to pop up on a different channel
At this point, you could randomly pick any video on TH-cam and you would have a 50/50 chance of picking one with Hank Green in it ;)
His energy and drive to educate people watching his videos though is infectious and fun
That's why we all love Hank and don't mind this invasion, so it's all good :)
The most opinionated, encyclopedic and geekiest guys on scishow. I love this.
Agreed, I'd love to download his brain to have instant access to it all.
This was a great episode! I could listen to you two talk for a long time. I really enjoyed the back and forth and how much philosophical thought is involved in this issue.
This was such a great episode! Thank you, Brit and Hank!
Part of invasive species management is about maintaining global biodiversity. It is true that in some instances local diversity increases (although that isn't typically the case), but invasive species forcing other species to extinction decreases biodiversity worldwide. I get the impression that Brit doesn't mind loss of biodiversity as long as there is a species feeling a given niche. There are so many reasons to maintain species diversity, OMG, I am going to stop before I write an essay. Great topic!
Awesome point about global numbers...the only counterpoint is when introgression leads to speciation, though this isn't exactly rampant.
There ARE so many reasons to maintain species diversity, and we've talked about it on this channel- I only bring up the ideas with Hank so that we can know why we personally want to maintain it. For Hank, it might have to do with entropy...for me, it has to do with intrinsic worth and general values. I just want everyone really critically examining all the arguments, for and against. Thanks for the excellent point! -Brit
Absolutely fantastic discussion - thanks so much!!! One of the most difficult topics to explore- well done.
This is an awesome philosophical discussion!
LOL, "Zebra muscles (mussels) are a huge problem for hydroelectric plants." I looked up from the game I was playing expecting to see an image of a very buff zebra muscling into the plant.
AHH IM SO GLAD I FOUND THIS CHANNEL I LOVE THIS
Yay! Welcome to Nature League :) -Brit
@@natureleague wow my favorite Scishow psych host noticed me.
Please know you're all a blessing and have re-inspired me to go back to school and get more into ecology and learning more everyday
Thank you.
Really like this conversation, I could listen to a lot more!
I think that we need to protect species from extinction if we are the cause of it. If the cause is just the natural processes of evolution, then we do not need to interfere. On the other hand, if a species is approaching extinction because humans took their habitat we are morally obliged to help the animals endangered.
Fixing the problem results in perpetuating a new problem.
We do have invasives that directly threaten local diversity. Local regions are seeing an explosion of climbing and fruiting vines. Such things are given ever method to spread starting with birds and humans. That i can not offer a better food stuff to birds or discourage the few people who are disinterested stopping aggressive plants from devastating forest and brush lands means the ecology i grew up with is being silently endangered.
I want to throw a monkey wrench into the conversation. We also treat native species as if they were invasive. Also species that move on their own can be invasive (birds and fish). The double breasted cormerant is native to southern Canada and most USA but most of Ontario (residents) thinks they are invasive and the mnrf is passing a law to cull the birds. Mostly because the birds are moving more north as it gets warmer and are destroying shoreline habitat
Totally- we refer to harmful native species as "pests" or "noxious" or "nuisance" etc. However, we can't as easily eradicate these individuals legally as it is to go and hunt pythons down in Florida. Awesome point about climate change...some species are undergoing range expansion simply due to this, and as it's "natural dispersion", it'd be hard to argue that migrating individuals are "non-native". It's so confusing and absurd and ahhhh!!! Thank you for the wrench :) -Brit
No snakes in irland uk got adders and grass snakes
interesting thought from Hank, this limiting entropy. I am not saying that it isn't fundamentally consistent, but one could argue that he shouldn't push this idea too far forward though. Reason: The mental reduction of morality to a fight against entropy could lead to a mental reduction of individual phenomena and by extension individual moral items(moral dilemmas, agents, patients and the like).
Tl;dr: Perhaps the illusion of individual moral agents and patients is better at achieving less entropy than the realisation that less entropy is the goal.
If the metric is simply "life", then invasive species are not a problem. If there's any distinction between types of life, then there's a value judgement about preferences for one type of life or another, or relationships among lives. The more distinctions among types of lives or their relationships, the more value judgments there have to be. So there's value judgments all over the place as we consciously connect with the world around us. And plenty of policy conflict.
I'm in favor of protecting genetic diversity, because it provides greater resilience of ecosystems (including energy flows and environmental processes) in the face of extremes. Species that are rare because they persist in a niche environment, or because they are the last of their kind, have more 'value' than species that are 'invasive' across many environments. Once the genetics of the rare species are lost, it's lost for good. So 'invasive' species that put rare species at risk are a problem, in my view.
Beyond protecting rare species, I'm in favor of protecting ecosystem processes. So an 'invasive' species that kick out key species or unravel a lot of ecosystem processes are problem 'invasives'. That would include 'invasive' species that change an area's fire regime or river and groundwater hydrology.
Anyway, that's my value judgement. It's one reason I encourage folks to harvest the edible invasive species in their areas. Foraging helps folks connect to their local environment - and appreciate how habitat loss and invasive species are more serious threats than picking wild plants and mushrooms.
Excellent points. These questions are values all the way down, FOR SURE. I instinctually want to agree with the idea of valuing rarity, but when I break it down I find it harder to support. Like, I personally love rare species, but I don't know that there's a utility argument for rareness aside from evolutionary potential of certain genes. Anyways, thanks for your thoughts!! -Brit
Watching nerds nerding out about stuff they both are very interested in is incredibly fun.
I loved this episode a ton.
As an undergrad doing research with invasive plants, I think this is a great discussion. Our lab meetings have delved into this kind of philosophy and it always fascinates me! Thanks for talking about this.
Fun conversation. I as I have grown up, I have grown to find grey much more interesting than black or white.
BTW, Here is Oregon, there is a love/hate with Blackberries. They are super tasty and super invasive; and, I think birds are the bigger culprit regarding their spread. Note: One of the most loved berries in Oregon is the Marionberry - which, i believe, was bred from the un-beloved Blackberry. Humans are so complicated ;)
WHO'S THIS CHUMP?
I live in South Dakota, our state bird is the non-native Ring-Necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Some of the local economy relys on pheasant hunting and related activities. An interesting example of how "invasive" species has a lot to do with economics! I have to giggle to myself a little every time the news reports that the pheasant population is not doing so well.
This is one of my favorite topics to geek out on!
Some resources I've found helpful in thinking about this topic.
Beyond the War on Invasive Species: A Permaculture Approach to Ecosystem Restoration
This book is pretty straightforwardly against the conventional definitions on invasion biology by a practicing permaculture farmer/former ecosystem restoration manager.
Staying with the Trouble by Donna Harraway
I feel like if you ever find yourself using the term athropocene in conversation on a regular basis, you should have to read some Donna Harraway.
You should check out Frans Vera too. He is a great ecologist and has a couple videos floating around TH-cam.
Pseudoscienctific nonsense. I work I conservation and have to undo the work of you idiots. You should be ashamed of the genocide you are inflicting
16:15 Diversity can be achieved by random mutations in the genome of a species. The problem would be the threshold of mutation/extinction, life will find a way to hold on unless it is wiped out before adapting.
I have a lot of problems with this discussion.
Being careful about non-native species has nothing to do with xenophobia. I’ve never heard a more ridiculous idea. For the hundreds of years that Americans have been truly xenophobic on the whole, we have also been importing hundreds of non-native plants from around the world. The Tree of Heaven, highly invasive tree to the east coast of the US, was introduced in Philadelphia in 1784 when the imitation of Asian Art was popular in Europe and the United States. I don’t think many of those same ‘high-class’ Anglo-Saxon folks would have wanted many Chinese people themselves coming into their country. The folks who support native species are the environmentalist-types who, in my experience, are the least likely of anyone to be xenophobic.
Also ridiculous is the idea that because humans are “natural” it is okay to bring invasive species wherever we please, as fast as we please. What makes the creation of diverse ecosystems before human influence more natural than what has recently been happening is the slow speed at which the spread of species would have happened with the help of birds, insects, and other pollinators, instead of a plane that brings a species into an ecosystem far faster that the area is able to evolve, adapt, and prepare for it. If an insect species slowly spreads across a continent over hundreds of years as would have happened in old times, chances are the tree species it preys upon will have sufficient time to evolve that some resistant variety of the tree will come into being soon enough. Such is not the case with the American chestnut tree, which has been all but eradicated by by the Southeast Asian Chestnut blight.
This is in general a very bad attitude to be propagating about invasive species. Negative outcomes are usually the reality of a species being introduced into another location where it is accustomed to the climate, but does not have to deal with the predators which usually keep its population in check. This often results in its takeover of an ecosystem and the displacement of the native species whose predators live there to keep it from dominating. Invasive species cost my home state of Virginia $120 billion in damage each year-their effects are far from neutral. Sure, not all non-native species have ended up hurting local ecosystems, but as many have done so, we should approach them with an air of caution and only import them when needed for food or otherwise. Most environmental problems in existence started with humans altering a natural system in a way that we didn’t think would turn out harmful.
Another important reason to be planting and supporting native species instead of non-natives is the preservation of distinct ecosystems in different parts of the world. If we continue to import and support any type of non-native wildlife that can live in a given climate but originated a whole ocean away, all of the differences between ecosystems across similar climates on our beautiful planet will be virtually lost. If both East Asia and North America boast many varieties of East Asian and North American wildlife, both places lose what makes them ecologically unique. Far from xenophobia, we should treat wildlife with the respect of leaving it to the places and people where it came from. Why should I feel the liberty to go to my mother’s home country of Iran to purchase and import a plane tree to the states because it boasts an interesting yellow bark? The spread of this species here would rob the Iranian forests and landscape of a fascinating characteristic which makes it unique from where I live.
I love this. It has provoked thoughts I have never had before. I'm constantly surprised by the information that can be hidden from us in plain sight. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
Australia has a range of invasive species that range from cute to ugly. Cane toads, rabbits, brumbys, water buffalo, camels and more. People are often devised depending on the species. We all hate cane roads, while brumbys are decisive because people love horses.
How did I only just find out about this channel??
Brit, I just wanna get tipsy and philosophize with you about values!
we should gaurd native ecosystems until we sequence all things there to not lost compounds produced by them. Totally humanocentric, but this is my argument for keeping the invasive species list.
can't we agree monocultures are vulnerable to becoming extinct, and if those monocultures kill everything first, then nothing rises up *in a timely manner* - to fill in the gaps which support other critters (and us)
St. Patrick “drove the snakes out of Ireland,” if by “snakes” you mean pagans. That’s what the saying means haha
Yes! It's all beautifully layered haha
Want to minimise habitat loss and have a child; consider adoption, you will be helping a person who already exists and making less mouths for the planet to feed.
YES!
Well cats and dogs are invasive species
Are human head-lice invasive?
Snakes = pagans.
Brit has the cutest giggle
Existence is about a constant struggle against entropy. fwiw.
Love this conversation. I often try to convey to others that just because a plant is non-native does not automatically mean that it's bad, and in fact in many cases can provide benefits to a local ecosystem. I find this especially to be true in urban environments, which are totally "unnatural" spaces to begin with; how can a plant be native to a place that didn't exist 100-200 years ago?
I also resonated with Hank's comment that "entropy is the only thing to fight". As a collections curator at a museum of natural history, the idea of preserving what will inevitably disappear is at the very heart of what we do, and I do think this applies to all human endeavor, including how we manage our own lives. I think it's interesting that you both were concerned about being overly philosophical, because I think almost any law or policy, when examined closely, is rooted in some sort of philosophical or moral belief, and I really enjoyed getting to hear those perspectives. So thank you Brit and Hank! Love the work you are doing.
So glad to hear it! Cheers to collections curators everywhere :) -Brit
Once Ireland was an island it never has snakes. Ireland has very few mammals, amphibians, fish (freshwater) or reptiles : ( By the way St. Patrick was Welsh, he was kidnapped by Irish pirates and used as a slave.
One species that is not legal in the U.S. is the Tanuki (Raccoon Dog). They strike me as a very fascinating mammal and I would like to see the laws relaxed in relation to them. For example would it be possible to bring neutered Tanukis into the U.S?
I've been working on a large area of Cape Ivy. It's so large that it kills everything in the area. It overtops trees, shrubs, everything.
Then small pieces break off and go down stream. YST is another example, not good for forage, anything,
I don’t normally engage with videos on TH-cam but invasive species are something I am passionate about, and I have had similar arguments with coworkers on many occasions. I must say, I agree with Hank’s arguments over Brit’s in almost every scenario. If she is playing devil's advocate, I apologize. I believe people have a responsibility to conserve our natural world, including our biodiversity, this involves attempting to correct some of our many wrongs to our natural resources.
Spotted Knapweed and Cheatgrass don’t just impact range health for livestock grazing- they pose a real threat to prairie and sagebrush diversity. I do think the Westslope Cutthroat, Apache trout, or one of the many other native trout species are worth saving from introduced populations of trout, hydroelectric projects, and overexploitation of water resources. Phragmites absolutely impacts wetland plant and animal diversity, no question, not even debatable. I can’t follow the logic that because we introduced the Pythons to Florida that they now should be allowed to live and expand, I also understated we will never eradicate them.
Ecologists and wildlife managers primary concern is the species and not the individual, I got the impression Brit was often on the side of the individual. I believe people have an obligation to reduce and whenever possible correct our negative impacts on the environment. I believe in conservation over preservation, and I believe in sustainable harvest of plants and animals from our landscape. We have always been part of nature, so as long as we are not having a negative impact on the resource let's continue to harvest from our oceans, consume wild animal protein, and sustainably log our forests. Finally, I do agree loss of available habitat, especially with our ever increasing population is the largest single issue.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I would actually _not_ consider humans an invasive species: We and several of our close relatives overcame the geographic boundaries of our original habitat by evolving sentience, an adaptation so effective it rendered the selective pressures exerted by most environments on land largely irrelevant. Technically it's probably more accurate to call us a _cosmopolitan species_ instead, like what crows and ospreys are for example; Just like those two our species spread through gradual spontaneous dispersal, resulting in near-global distribution - not because of a sweepstakes dispersal event - which is how monkeys got to South America, just to name one - but through our ability to live almost anywhere and natural population growth. A species can be both, sure, but "invasive species" suggest something that was introduced across the boundaries of it's natural range artificially or through a rare natural event rather than it simply being unfazed by geographic boundaries by virtue of it's inherent characteristics.
They only become "invasive" because of humans. Otherwise, they already would have invaded. But they can't because of oceans or whatever. In the past, there are cases of species coming into an ecosystem because climate changed or whatever, but in all current cases we're talking about species invading due to humans.
As natural beings we invented technology. Wouldn't that mean it's natural for us to use technology? So then wouldn't it be natural for us to move spices around with technology?
Have you separated yourself from hank and John green’s con/fraud of my identity?
Excellent discussion. Especially liked how you were willing to talk from multiple sides.
Okay Brit, I really like the way you explained your argument regarding biodiversity for its own sake or because it is something we "feel" is better. What I got from your words was that perhaps it is not necessarily a bad thing if life adapted a world with less species more capable of thriving in a world with humans. I think that while there is a very powerful sense of awe that comes from a world with a huge diversity of species because it truly does put in to perspective the many billion year organic project that is evolution. That being said, it's not as simple as wanting something a certain way because it's satisfying.
How to domesticate a possum....learned nothing! Waste of time. Dont have time to waste on your coffee chat. Boring
I'm starving for intelligent conversations like this
I'd love to have someone I could talk to face to face about issues such as this
Sadly everyone I know is either uninterested and/or dumb as a rock
Jealous :/
Can you make a video on *specism* ?
Humans are invassive only in their ability to suddenly transfer their numbers at range in short time and that we have adapted and forcefully adapted other things to survive beyond the probabilities of animal like us. Common creatures over produce or scale their resources to an unviable amount. We've done this before but continue to find new ways of pushing beyond the possible.
Cool. I never thought of humans as an invasive species. With that thought, we could look at war as a survival technique. Wars are always fought because we want to, or because we have to.
I like this as a podcast the problem of youtube you cant put it on the back ground(like spotify). Comment if that is false.
Thanos was just working on a galactic ecology dissertation.
Great video and conversation! Also... GOOOO GATORS!
As an Aussie, I have to point out the introduction of many species to this continent and how it hasn't been for the better. Some plant introductions, have remained where they were intended to be... in the home garden... and still brighten our world.
Thank you, I spent the whole episode thinking that this conversation would be completely different if it were between two Aussies.
And yes that's a good point about some species remaining in home gardens. There are exotic species that grow outside their native area only due to human intervention but lack the ability to "invade" areas outside of cultivation (like olives which do super well in Western Australia but apart from living a while after cultivation has ceased, they don't spread out of control and out compete indigenous species).
There should be a distinction between "invasive species" and "introduced species". There are plenty of introduced species such as goldfish that have not spread to wild water ways and are unlikely to, and they shouldn't be counted in the same list as foxes and rabbits, which outcompete and predate native species to (and past) the point of extinction.
I just don't think this was a very well considered discussion and I don't know if it's a cultural thing between Americans and Australians, or that I simply don't agree with the personal opinions posed.
@@maeveburgess4553 Tilapia is a problem up here in northern Qld as it does out compete some of our native fish species. But it is really about perspective.
Prickly Pear was introduced and went totally wild, taking over huge areas. Physical eradication was never going to work but control could, so Cactoblastis cactorum was bought in. Yes, there is still Prickly Pear, but it is no longer a MAJOR problem.
There is an African terrestrial [ground] orchid that is considered a major problem as it out competes some of our Australian terrestrials.
These are the "bad guy" examples and they came off the top of my head... trying to think of a "good guy" example and I am struggling. So perhaps Australia has a set of parameters due to its long isolation that makes it unique, much as with New Zealand.
@@maeveburgess4553 In my invasion ecology coursework, we spent almost a full month discussing cases in Australia. In no way do I minimize the damage you guys have undergone due to a handful of invasive species...plus, islands are definitely more susceptible. At least for us, there is a difference between invasive and introduced- invasive species are introduced species that cause harm. Anyway, I recognize the big issues in Australia, and that there's reason for concern. That said, the larger philosophical questions are still really important. -Brit
Its weird to think of knapweed is an invasive species elsewhere. Here in the uk its a too uncommon treat to find it growing wild and I've grown in in my garden as part of a native meadow.
I just came across this and I love it. Many great points!!!
This talk was so so good.
i`m from florida and also spent time in MT that is pretty cool... #notstalking
Such amazing conversation! Love it
Because so many people love nature.
A couple of points.
First, humans are the only species on the planet that can INTENTIONALLY transplant another species. That doesn't make us un-natural.
Second, if we believe in evolution, then there is no such thing as "native" as all species will eventually exist on any other place on the planet, "naturally".
Third, I live in the southern region of the U.S. and the plant Kudzu is considered an invasive species. but it is a long viney plant... prefect for basket making... So, I have a point of view that if we only learned to use the plants, then we could grow to a better place. (granted, the same rule applied to animals stands up less so, but it's a start)
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. lol
Thanks for sharing these points!
You and Hank should have your own Podcast!
This is the worst invasive species: Humans
Everything has a purpose.
This is a very interesting discussion. I'm not an expert, but I think I have some understanding of what the problem with "invasive" species is, when it comes to human intervention. Most natural ecosystems have factors that change them and they have to adapt to the changes, but when it comes to humans, we have the means to change things quickly and drastically without even intending to. So when we introduce a new species to a new area, especially if we have already disturbed that area a significant amount, that species has the potential to cause extinctions of other species, because we change things so fast that the environment doesn't have a chance to adapt to the changes at its normal pace. I think destruction of habitats is a key issue here as you say. I live in the suburbs and only a fraction of the land is left to grow wild, so the natural evolution of plants and insects doesn't happen as readily as it would in an undisturbed area. When I think of controlling invasive species, I think just slowing down the rate they spread is probably one of the best things we can do, to give ecosystems a chance to adapt to them. For instance, one of my friends talks about native insects evolving to eat non-native plants over a period of time, and it seems like if we could allow that to happen more, there would be less risk of species extinctions.
Yes, rate of change does matter, and it matters a lot.
The only counterargument I'd suggest (only for the sake of logical/fun discourse) is epigenetics. We're learning that changes to organisms and populations can happen more rapidly than we'd expect due to Darwinian evolution alone. It's possible that epigenetic changes caused by environments could give species a quicker way to adapt. But honestly, who knows...this is a relatively infant field of research, but interesting nonetheless. -Brit
this video was so good.
as someone who wants to go on to study conservation biology and/or ecology its very interesting to here from two people experienced in the field discuss the nuances of the subject. Thanks so much brit and hank!
I absolutely loved this! Thank you!
This is a fantastic conversation that more people need to have and think about! You have addressed many of the issues I struggle with on this topic. There are no easy answers but the conversation is important.
Love this! Love hearing you talk... one note, my Dad (who grew up in Belfast) has said numerous times that St. Patrick driving the "snakes" out of Ireland was actually meaning driving the Pagans out of Ireland.
I've heard that as well! Gotta love the nature metaphors ;) -Brit
Fantastic discussion. Hilarious. Personally, if it's increasing biodiversity, it is a net gain for the world, so I don't care which particular species survive. I don't know if I would kill animals and to do it, but I certainly capture, sterilize and release (I mean, I wish we could keep all domestic cats indoors, but catch and release might be what we have to strive for) Basically, I'm with Hank on this, diversity is good.
It would be nice if humans could reach a better efficiency. People living with relatively equal resources and being able to contribute their best, and not causing more damage than absolutely necessary.
Uh, because they deserve it?
Brilliant!!! Love this episode, I love the dialogue format and exploring philosophy of ecology
every take i wasnt ready for
holy shit! what a good talk
FUCK THIS IS DEEP. Ugh love this.
I absolutely love this comment hahaha -Brit
This is sooo good! Articulates so many of my shower thoughts lol
Hahaha yes!! Showers are so good for environmental philosophy 😂
🤯
It's not weird that as humans we separate the world into "artificial", meaning controlled by humans, and "natural", meaning not controlled by humans.
"Artificial" and "natural" are of course anthropocentric concepts. And that's appropriate, because we are humans talking to other humans about using the institutions of human politics to influence the behaviour of other humans for the benefit (mostly) of humans. Human politics is necessarily anthropocentric because language only allows us to talk with other humans, not with members of other species.
If we were ants discussing ant politics, we would separate the world into things controlled by ants, and everything else. But we're not ants. We're humans.
Ooh, that is an AWESOME point! -Brit
@@natureleague: Hmm, I actually kind of disagree. Or at least, I think it's a point that's worth thinking more about. (And the rest of this comment is primarily directed as a response to Oliver's words -- though a bit more to you at the end.)
I think the thing that has the potential to be most problematic here is that while our _thinking_ is anthropocentric, our *_impact_* is anything but. I'm reminded of the intent vs impact idea within feminist, anti-racist, etc. circles. If you're not familiar, I'd encourage you to read the following, and probably for the first read I'd encourage you to be thinking in that context:
everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/
But then, go back and read it again, thinking about the discussion from this video, and making appropriate substitutions as you read.
Sure, if Hank walks down to South America with a fly in his hair (or whatever), he didn't _mean_ to bring an invasive species, but if that fly species somehow dominates in a new-to-it environment, wiping out a bunch of South American species (by bringing disease, or wiping out a competitor in an ecological niche, or whatever), well... Hank may not be a speciesist, but the _impact_ was an eradication of species. So... sure, we're humans, and we're subject to human-centric biases, because other humans are the easiest thing for us to relate to, since they're the closest things to us. But that doesn't let us off the hook for thinking about our impact. And it's not like we can't do so. There's plenty of good tradition of human cultures who thought deeply about their impact on the world in which they lived. Yet in modern "western" culture, we're largely willfully ignorant of it, or worse, disdainful of the environments and species we destroy.
And I bet you those ants, if they're discussing ant politics, have both anteaters and humans among their agenda items. :-P Because those other species represent an existential threat to the ants, so they _have_ to pay attention.
But for us, it's a point of privilege that we don't feel we have to think about the ants. I'm of the opinion, though, that we have a moral obligation to do so.
And indeed, Hank and Brit are, in fact, doing so here. And that's wonderful to see. Whether or not these two specifically, or we more broadly, are getting all the details "right" (correct) or not, it's important (to me) that we be thinking about these things. And trying to reduce the harm that we inflict on others. And to bring the apparently-requisite bit of Harry Potter into it... we need "constant vigilance" on this point. (Hopefully a book 4 reference will do.)
IMHO.
Fascinating topic
While I found the conversation interesting, it also sounded an awful lot like advocating in favor of invasive species, which I find both disturbing and very irresponsible. While it's true that the exact effect of a given species is not always black and white, there have been many invasive species which have been nothing short of an ecological disaster, and the last thing anyone should be doing, is downplaying the significance of the impact they can have on an entire ecosystem or downplaying the threat they can pose to native species.
"Invasive" by definition means causing some sort of harm, so I don't think either or us were intending on being in favor of things that cause harm. For me, though, it's important to ask why we value native species as much as we do, like your comment suggests. I also worry about demonizing these species that cause harm in the situation that humans are responsible for their introduction. Thanks for the thought, it's a very fair point! -Brit
@@natureleague I've been watching SciShow for years and SciShow Psyche since it began, and I've seen more than enough to believe you are both well meaning, generally well grounded in science, and a relatively credible source of information. I don't believe you would intentionally be in favor of anything harmful, which is partly why I commented about it. I'm not questioning your intent, and didn't mean to make it sound like I was. My concern is primarily only with the way that some of it sounded. It's an important issue, with potentially very serious environmental consequences, and not a topic I think should be at all ambiguous in that regard, because of the very real potential for ecological damage. SciShow in particular, I know has done several episodes on invasive species.
I understand your concern about not wanting invasive species to be demonized, and it's a fair concern. I have no desire to see them demonized either. On a personal level, I happen to be quite fond of Burmese Pythons and Lionfish. I also find Snakehead fish fascinating. All 3 of them I know to be invasive species there in Florida, and have all caused ecological harm to the native species there. I'm sure there are others, those are just the 3 that I know of, off of the top of my head, because of my fondness for them. I'd be lying if I didn't say that part of me likes knowing that they are there, but I also know that they really don't belong there either, and their presence there has not been without significant consequences. They're all beautiful creatures in their own ways, but they really belong in their own natural habitats.
I'm certain you already know that non-native species are introduced through any number of ways, whether it be as accidental stowaways, escapes from the food industry during some natural disaster, or as intentional releases. I don't know exactly how Burmese Pythons and Lionfish found their way into Florida, but they were both almost certainly introduced from the pet industry, whether they got loose during a hurricane or were intentionally released as unwanted pets by their previous owners. But I do know that many well meaning people do regularly try to release their unwanted pets, when they can no longer afford to care for them, or simply because they lost interest. They're often well meaning people with good intentions, that think they are doing their pet a favor, not realizing the harm their "good deed" can cause. I found the video topic very interesting, but these are the people I worry the most about getting the wrong message, and why I feel it's important as educators, to make sure that it's clear.
Why do we value native species? I would ask, why do we value any species at all? Rhetorically, of course. I could say that we should value native species because every species has the right to exist, and in the case of native species it's their natural home, in most of those cases, it's the only home they have. Or I could say that every fiber of my being says it's the right thing to do. But I don't really like to try to justify a position based on my personal feelings or with moral arguments. So I will say that yes, life is always changing, but the balance of ecosystems have evolved over the course of tens of thousands to millions of years, and that balance can be easily disrupted when a non-native species is suddenly introduced. Most species can't adapt that quickly to environmental changes. Maybe the impact of a non-native introduction is minimal in some cases. But other times, especially a species with no natural predators, it can lead to the extinction of multiple other species and disrupt the entire natural balance of a habitat. It may be some minor species that barely anyone has noticed that goes extinct, and perhaps no one will notice it's missing. Then again, it may also be a critical keystone species, that causes the extinction of many other additional species as well, or the loss has some other unforeseen damage to the environment. The results are often unpredictable, and aren't usually know until it happens. Each habitat is unique and precious, and once a species is lost, it's usually gone forever, forever altering the balance of that ecosystem, and it's usually not for the better in most cases. It's not always about economics either. Just take a look at the results of the brittle starfish or the aquarium strain of Caulerpa Taxifolia, a macro algae, in the Mediterranean. In both cases, they don't just disrupt a single species, they can turn the entire aquatic landscape into an underwater desert. Or ask Guam and Hawaii how well snakes, rodents, and ants have worked out for their local bird populations, found no where else in the world, and many are already gone forever. Yes, they're islands, but the confined space of an island just accelerates the results. My point is, that unless we are prepared to accept the risk of an ecological collapse, accept the loss of entire natural habitats, or cement over the entire Earth and accept all that would entail, then I think we need to care about every native species we can.
Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded, but it's a complicated topic.
I can see why the argument against invasive species based on the extinction of other animals is valid. If we are currently in a mass extinction era (totally our fault) it would make sense to try and mitigate as many extinctions as possible. If we weren't already killing off a bunch of species maybe it would be different.
Great discussion! Love Hank's philosophical reasoning about greater biodiversity being good because it more effectively slows entropy; that very premise could be a root for a moral system. I'm going to be thinking this one over for a while.
Also, "snakes" are what the Catholics called Pagans and other non-Christians. "Driving out the snakes" sounds a lot more innocent than it was.
This was fascinating.
So glad to hear it!
I agree with all of this.
As the only ones capable of makeing a change, we owe it to all the life that we screwed over in the past by recreating habitats and promoting biodiversity. and so what if an invasive species is doing well or is a hybrid as long as there is enough other species there to compete and keep balance.
You guys bonked the nail right on the head. Everything is grey and complicated.
yes YAS for the hp reference. also love this new channel! this changed my view on invasive species even though it wasnt a bad one to start with.
Loooove this. I wish I could participate in more conversations like this. Sometimes, I feel the desire to relocate to Montana....
This was a great episode. I wonder what affects hippopotamus poop slinging will have?
Yesterday I posted some questions about all this on your video from last week! This is a very bright and complex discussion of all this! - I still think it would maybe help the climate change discussion if we could make very clear, that we are talking about our human values and our human survival. - The earth doesn't care, who lives and who dies and who goes extinct. Climate change is really only about us humans. - Catastrophic change and mass extinction have happened before. They don't carry any intrinsic value or condemnation with them. That's just us.
I disagree with Hank. I think that cyanobacteria, tardigrades, some fungi, some moulds and some bacteria are even more "intrusive" than we humans are. They literally live throughout the whole biosphere which we can't. Some of them even live inside us.
Brit and Hank, thank you very much for this delightful brainfood video!
Oooh yes, lovely point about internal symbiosis and microbes. I've mentioned cyanobacteria before in terms of a single species causing some major issues for life on Earth (i.e., oxygenation)...it's something I think about a lot. The larger point, for me, is that we are conscious of cause and effect so hey, might as well talk about responsibility. Thanks so much for your comments! -Brit
"All of the beautiful things." Yes. Keep fighting the good fight !
Loved this video, invasive species and how humans affect wildlife is my jam. Anyone got recommendations on articles/books/videos that go more in depth on some of the stuff talked about?
I've definitely got a few, but it depends on the subject. What interests you the most within this topic? Definitions? Policy? Environmental philosophy? Ecology? -Brit
Fantastic episode!!! Loved having Hank on!!! I do have a question though, are birds considered not natural or invasive or are they not really categorized as that since they could naturally reach any place??
Great question! Birds, particularly migratory birds, have large "natural" ranges and are able to disperse great distances. I like to think of marine mammals and large pelagic fish like the great white shark as well. These species aren't considered non-native in their natural ranges, even though those ranges are massive. However, in locations where humans introduced certain bird species to places where they don't "naturally" disperse, those species would be considered non-native. The "invasive" title gets tacked on if they do some kind of harm. Hope this helps! -Brit
I wonder what you'd think about the idea of engineering organisms with the specific goal of preserving biodiversity. As you point out we focus on ourselves, but genetic diversity can certainly be considered a natural resource, don't you think?
Ooh, cool point- genetic diversity is TOTALLY a natural resource, and is actually referred to as such by several international NGOs. However, engineering organisms, or creating synthetic organisms, is a whole different conversation, as there are issues with how to classify those organisms (i.e., is this new thing critically endangered because there are only 10 of them? etc.)
Valuing and protecting genetic diversity in general seems okay by me, but I begin to have issues when there are demarcations between native and non-native genetic diversity, as I feel like humans are drawing hypothetical lines. Anyways, awesome question! -Brit
Yay! Been waiting for this epi! :D
Oh yes, this is the conversation I've been waiting for!
This is awesome!