environmental preservation discourse, native vs non-native species etc

knotweed is a problem (from our perspective, from its perspective it's doing great) but I wouldn't want to get rid of rabbits or fallow deer or canada geese or even ring necked parakeets (which conservationists have issues with but they do bring a bit of colour to this miserable grey island)

shout out to pigeons, fucking legends (weird how much contempt people have for life that manages to survive in cities)

i think what you have to look at from a conservation POV is how the balance of an ecosystem is being affected by a new species. there might be a period of adjustment and then a new balance is found, and then you could say the species was naturalised. otoh there could be more of a death spiral thing happening where the final outcome is just complete collapse, and yeah, you probably don't want that happening. a lot of the time though, it's the economic impact that's prioritised - japanese knotweed is mostly a problem because of how destructive it is to the built environment

i think a larger point is that ecology isn't an absolute, objective science

It is. It really is. Ecology is closely associated with field biology. So basically whatever you think about biology as a science you can apply that to ecology.

Okay so no one's literally taking a blanket "pro-invasive species stance" but there does seem to be a widespread assumption here that ecology is significantly open to interpretation and it isn't. Yes policy based on the science is going to be more "soft". It's very much like public health in terms of science firmly grounded in empirical evidence vs political application of science which is much more subjective.

you don't seem to be reading the posts above, as usual

there is literally no such thing as "objectivity"

there's a helpful link from rob one if you feel like learning something

one above

there is literally no such thing as "objectivity"

So glad I'm here for this

empiricism is literally subjective by definition!

Okay I am not a philosopher and I'm open to being schooled on the correct terminology but in this instance assume that whatever the precisely applicable term for "hard" science is, that's what ecology is.

literally just objective reality? what do you need the scientists for then

I think we're done right

I know you are but what am I

I think we're done right

― recovering internet addict/shitposter (viborg), Wednesday, October 26, 2022 8:51 PM (twenty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

"we".

btw you don't seem to be recovering

It's a process dear

never call me dear

Okay pam

Sorry I'm an agnostic dyslexic