What is the fanatical obsession with Natives over "invasives"?
In lots of ecosystems, they were already massively changed by humans for millennia or centuries, so a lot of the "natives" were wiped out, and the ecosystem has largely been fucked due to it, like the loss of Megafauna pretty much everywhere, but then returning modern megafauna, like cows or camels or whatever is frowned upon, despite largely playing the same role ancient Megafauna had.
In lot of areas as well, they've been fucked due to sudden climate shifts, which destroy an entire layer of the ecosystem and because the climate shift was so sudden (say end of ice age or whatever), nothing really evolved to take the place, and again, "invasives" can work just as well there to fill in roles long gone.
Shouldn't ecosystems function on roles? If there is no real functional ecosystem there, due to past human or natural events, what is the problem with using "invasives" to fill those niches that are lost?

On a certain level merely promoting biomass is sufficient since human civilization doesn't need maximum biodiversity or anything like that.
On the other hand, for those who believe in stewardship then there are many layers to consider, including preservation of biodiversity. When speaking of roles, having two plants in the same location isn't enough to indicate that they serve the same roles. On the contrary, invasives tend to be quite good at destroying existing roles which otherwise would've been held in a cooperative balance.
Since it's not that difficult as thinking adults to make small choices that lead to big changes in this regard, there's no real problem with promoting natives. For instance, there's millions of acres of lawn in the US which could host things other than turf grass and non-native ornamentals.

I got interested in this subject a while ago, and I've concluded true "invasives" are actually very rare. Most of the "invasive" species share the same characteristics: thrives on disturbed, human-modified landscapes. Some examples
>Kudzu
>thrives on forest edges near human settlement, and on buildings
>Earthworms
>thrives in heavily farmed forests and urban/suburban areas
>Asian Carp
>thrives due to humans dismantling beaver dams and other natural erosion control

It's funny how we call these invasive when in reality we've done absolutely everything possible to make the environment suitable for these species. It's like how a while back a study found that european earthworms basically couldn't survive in old grown American hardwood forests, but ask any forester and they'll say old growth forests are an ecological wasteland (because they're in the pockets of the timber industry).

>>16694408 (OP)
>>16694492
unscientific.

>>16694408 (OP)
Are Jews the mother of all invasive species?

>>16694408 (OP)
you might think non-native plants can fill the same roles as native ones, but the native bugs have evolved to eat specific plants and the non-native ones don't taste right
just go out in the woods and you'll see only certain plants have their leaves eaten while others are totally untouched
this goes for laying eggs, etc. the plant chemisty drives their behavior
non-native plants aren't much better than pavement as far as many bugs are concerned. and we have had a huge decline in bugs

>>16694408 (OP)
>diversity advocate confused by refusal to bring diversity to one place
It's a matter of stupidity, OP. You are stupid.

>>16695616
Eventually over thousands of years the native bugs will learn how to eat the new plants. Problem is this will take thousands of years, but short term species diversity decline can increase the probability of extinction.

>>16696295
99% of species that ever existed went extinct. Why do we care so much about what's obviously inevitable and natural course of evolution?

>>16696465
Because species provide services to humanity in recycling nutrients/minerals into the ground. The extinction of a species is just one more possible disruption to this cycle which your existence depends on.

>>16694408 (OP)
It's subtle anti-white propaganda
"Natives" are elevated as morally correct and "colonizers" are denigrated as intrinsically evil

>>16694408 (OP)
>Shouldn't ecosystems function on roles?
No, they should function the way they were before humans fucked them up. A species is a species, not a role, you imbecile, and the loss of any one species is a detriment to my enjoyment of the natural world and a moral wrong. You would have all animals and plants replaced with robots and it wouldn't make a difference to you. Soulless freak.

>>16694408 (OP)
Cause invasive species can result in the extinction of native ones, and no one want to loose what we have faggot

>>16696564
>they should function the way they were before humans fucked them up.
In that case, we should import some large carnivores to Australia, as well as a plenty of large herbivores

>>16696619
Survival of the fittest

>>16696637
they got plenty of camels now, and the feral cats already grow to more than double the weight of a housecat.

>>16697212
Very nice. That should stir up those lazy marsupial rats. Their freeloading days are over!

>>16697313
The big ones are eating wallabys now. Its fast track speciation, filling open predator niches. Give it another century or two and you'll get Jaguar sized kittys taking down roos and emus and no amount of trapping and shooting feral cats will change that

>>16697348
Nice, very nice. Gonna try to find some papers on it.