Just out of curiosity, would Matt's discussion of "invasive" also apply to "pathogenic"?
> > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Matt Chew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We don’t need to have a linguistic discussion, because labeling a process > > consisting of unintended arrival, survival and successful reproduction of > > organisms an “invasion” is a conceptual, categorical error. That makes > it > > a philosophical discussion, but hardly an arcane one. I'll only use a > few > > terms borrowed from philosophy, and then only because they precisely > > represent the necessary concepts. > > > > Whether deliberately or reflexively applied to biota, “invasion” denotes > > biogeographical anomaly and connotes reprehensible, willful misbehavior. > More > > importantly, it always elides description or explanation and rushes to > > judgment. There are understandable reasons for doing that; either we > feel > > threatened, or we sympathize with someone else who feels threatened, or > we > > project those feelings onto things that can’t feel threatened and feel > > threatened on their behalf. All very human. The trouble, for present > > purposes, is the space where the science of ecology can add anything > unique > > or valuable to the discussion is limited to the descriptive, explanatory > > steps we skip over in the rush to judgment. > > > > > > > > Returning to cases, nobody who suddenly finds they can’t depend on all > > locally procured truffles to be equally valuable needs an ecologist to > > explain commercial value or truffle sorting. Folk taxonomy and practical > > business acumen is sufficient to the task. Nor can an ecologist improve > > the situation by simply echoing and reifying the truffle > > hunter/dealer/buyer’s lament. Worse yet, claiming from a stance of > > (supposed) scientific authority, “Chinese truffles are invading Europe” > > makes that statement out to be a scientific assessment. It isn’t > > scientific at all. It neither describes nor explains any actual > phenomenon. > > > > > > > > It does, however, vaguely (and yes, pejoratively) lump the European > advent > > of Chinese truffles together with a broad range of reputedly deplorable > > cases likewise labeled “invasive species.” It also incidentally serves > to > > distinguish the "bad" invaders from useful species celebrated for > > economically or aesthetically comporting with proximate human objectives. > > That's pretty ironic, because field crops are the only plants that > > effectively occupy and hold territory while completely excluding all > > others. Our mutualists are not called invasive, even when cultivating > them > > arguably meets defensible criteria for description as a biological > > invasion. Nobody needs ecologists, ecology or an ecological education to > > draw such categories. That's why the basic ideas involved were already > > worked out in the 1830s. Explaining why they are still current among > > ecologists is more of a puzzle. It all could have ended with Darwin, and > > certainly should have ended with the "modern synthesis." > > > > > > > > No so-called “invasive” species is doing anything anomalous. None has > any > > capability to persist where it is unfit. None has any responsibility to > > perish where it is fit simply because it is novel there by human > standards. > > None is responsible for issues of time or distance. Ecologists may, > > retrospectively, be able to work out the details of why particular cases > > proceeded in particular ways in particular places at particular times. > What > > we cannot say, in our roles as ecologists, is whether the dispersal > events > > leading to those cases should have occurred. > > > > > > > > We can, of course, apply personal preferences to cases and announce > whether > > we like them or not. But (contra the implications of Aldo Leopold’s > ‘world > > of wounds’) our preferences do not arise from an ecological education. > > Neither does any privilege of holding or expressing them. If you prefer > to > > maximize beta diversity, fine; you may know what that shorthand means > > because of an ecological education, but preferring it doesn’t follow from > > knowing precisely how ecologists describe it. All you need to know is > that > > you like different “places” to be as different as possible. As an > > ecologist, you should realize that the amounts and types of rapid traffic > > bringing formerly isolated locations into practical contact renders such > a > > preference increasingly unrepresentative of the real world real plants > and > > animals live in. > > > > > > > > Beta diversity means nothing until you learn its definition. Lacking > that > > knowledge, you might envision something, but there is a low possibility > > that anyone would randomly hit upon its accepted ecological meaning. > > Unlike beta diversity, “invasion” is not a legitimate ecological term, or > > even a useful shorthand. Invasion is a common concept with a > longstanding > > military meaning. It is useful as a metaphor because its meaning is > stable. > > Ecologists who protest that “invasion” has a specific, ecological meaning > > wholly divested of its common metaphorical associations are mistaken. > > Perhaps they are rationalizing our inability or unwillingness to (a) > > construct a coherent, defensible ecological category or (b) abandon the > > advantages of investing their personal valorization preferences with > > scientific authority. > > > > > > Several times I have been warned by thoughtful, well-intentioned > ecologists > > who acknowledge the categories native, alien and invasive are > theoretically > > weak (even empty) that repudiating them would be too costly--in terms of > > lost societal and political influence--to contemplate. In my view, > failing > > to repudiate them will be costlier still. I suspect most of us still > > haven't really thought about it much. > > > > > > Matthew K Chew > > Assistant Research Professor > > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences > > > > ASU Center for Biology & Society > > PO Box 873301 > > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA > > Tel 480.965.8422 > > Fax 480.965.8330 > > [email protected] or [email protected] > > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew > > > > > -- > Robert J. Miller > Marine Science Institute > University of California Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara CA 93106-6150 > (805) 893-6174 > -- Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit Botany University of Hawaii 3190 Maile Way Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA 1-808-956-8218
