So I heard my friend call an invasive plant a displaced relative and when pressed on it they basically said that the plants didn’t choose to come here and they are victims of colonialism. Invasive implies they aren’t welcome, you wouldn’t say that the enslaved people brought over to the new world are invasive so why would you a plant? Then they said human agriculture was invasive because it’s monoculture and doesn’t allow other plants to grow, which you know fair point. So what’s the consensus is my friend an idiot or am I an idiot?

Edit: I just texted my friend, they said they got the concept from this book. Fresh Banana Leaves: Healing Indigenous Landscapes Through Indigenous Science

    • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I'm not proud, but I am about to victimize the absolute shit out of some jalapeno peppers. Look upon ye late season peppers and shudder for I am the wind that reaps the salsa.

    • chairmantau [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Is outright extermination of invasive species the answer though? Grass for example can grow without human intervention in a lot of places, maybe the answer is that humans should prioritize growing some species without outright killing other ones. Ripping out every lawn seems rather a pointless effort. Why can’t it just coexist with native species?

      • DialecticalShaman [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Some invasives should absolutely be eliminated (for a long time I've thought this would make a good jobs program). In the PNW for example Japanese knotweed very quickly forms thick stands that prevent any natives from growing. English ivy and clematis can completely cover mature trees, kill them, then carpet the ground and prevent any more from growing.

        In contrast, foxglove is non-native in the one but it isn't aggressive in the same way, doesn't form monocultures, and some local pollinators like it.

        • keepcarrot [she/her]
          ·
          2 years ago

          In contrast, foxglove is non-native in the one but it isn’t aggressive in the same way, doesn’t form monocultures, and some local pollinators like it.

          Does that make it less invasive?

      • DialecticalShaman [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        The American Chestnut tree (abundant food source and ecological keystone species) is nearly extinct thanks to an introduced fungus. Sometimes coexistence isn't an option. (It would be if we genetically engineered a resistant version of the tree and spread it in the old range)

      • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes. If you want to have native species in their environment then you have to get rid of the invasive species because their presence makes it a different habitat.

        There is no coexistence with invasive species because they outcompete the native ones and change the biome and environment. You can’t have both.

      • D61 [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        There's a species of honey suckle in North America that is from Asia. N.A. native honey suckle will typically die back during the winter months but the Asian version does not. So what happens is that the vines will grow up trees, never die back, and damage or outright kill a tree. This free falls over and damages/kills other trees while the Asian honey suckle keeps on growing and growing and growing.

        The Asian version can't coexist as its existence in most North American environments means it takes over, hence the term, "invasive."