Culling Invasive Species a Hurdle to Natural Selection

[CJC]

So I was walking through the Chemistry and Biology building of my college the other day, and next to the taxidermy-preserved animals was a pamphlet about various invasive species (both aquatic and botanical) in the area that we (humanity) must combat to prevent the extinction of native specimens.


But doesn't that combat the very principle of natural selection? Clearly these invasive species are hardier specimens, hence why they are choking out native wildlife. I can understand the argument that human beings are introducing these species to regions where they are not culled properly by predators, but shouldn't the new host ecosystem adapt for their presence? Isn't that the point of evolutionary change; animals and plants adjust to competition and become more complex in the process, or they die off?

Now don't get me wrong, I love my polar bears and frogs as much as the next person does (or perhaps just a touch more), but the competitive viability of a species is a core element of Darwinian evolution. Isn't the assumption by environmentalists that they cannot have any impact on the world inherently flawed? After all, humans too are a part of the ecosystem.


It is my theory that evolution's primary goal is to create a food chain that is viable in any of the planet's environments. So if invasive species obliterate native wildlife, then that native wildlife is not viable enough. If the invasive species also make the region inhospitable and thus starve themselves, then they TOO are not viable enough. Maintaining these separations of ecosystems seems... wrong. Like humankind is pushing against the forces of nature and chaos. Is it our hubris to believe we are more powerful than circumstance?


Anyway, that's my argument. Is there an important component of the effects of invasive species that I'm overlooking? Also, are there any counterarguments?

[MasterSwordUltima]

All I can think of is, que sera, sera.

I do find it fascinating though, how we (humans) are part of the ecosystem - and therefore one could argue that whatever we do is simply natural selection. Whether it be clearing out forests to make cookie-cutter housing districts, or dumping tons of oil and various chemicals into the ocean - which destroys various habitats. Meaning that because the fish can't adapt almost instantaneously to a gigantic cloud of oil, they are not fit to survive. I suppose the most peculiar bit is that we have such an (apparent) higher state of intelligence, we should be able to alter the outcome and determine the future against the ebb and flow of natural selection (see: zoo's, and reserves).

[Tim]

Being a success in the Natural Selection process is not synonymous with being on top... Human are going to overdo it in the future and the planet will not be able to sustain life.

[Glenn the Great]

"Survival of the Fittest" does not necessarily mean survival of the smartest, the strongest, or the hardiest. It's survival of those with the most dumb luck, really.

Humans are part of nature: anything we do to destroy or alter the environment and the things that live in it is ultimately part of nature's grand will for the planet.
Some day there may exist an advanced life-form that regards us and the things we have done the way we regard the average non-human critter today.