Ecological Eugenics and the Pseudoscience of Invasion Biology
1. Nazi Germany’s Ecological Eugenics (1930s–1945)
Ecology was weaponized by the Nazi regime to serve its genocidal racial ideology under Blut und Boden (“Blood and Soil”). Nature’s “purity” was linked directly to Aryan racial purity and territorial nationalism. Native species became racialized symbols, while non-native species were cast as existential threats—mirroring the regime’s xenophobic violence.
Key figure: Walther Schoenichen, who promoted native species protection as racial hygiene under fascist propaganda.
2. Charles Elton and the Birth of Invasion Biology (1958)
Elton’s Ecology of Invasions repackaged Nazi-era ecological purity ideas into the language of population control and ecosystem balance. His framing of “native” versus “invasive” species enshrined a binary rooted in xenophobic and exclusionary logic.
“The rhetoric of invasion biology is a sanitized echo of racial purity ideologies from the early 20th century.”
— David Theodoropoulos, Ecoscience and Ideology (2020)
3. Institutionalization of a Pseudoscience (Late 20th Century)
Organizations like IUCN and SCOPE formalized invasion biology’s native/invasive framework, ignoring its ideological baggage. This framework simplifies complex ecosystems into rigid moral categories, ignoring human history and ecological nuance.
“The native/invasive distinction is not only scientifically problematic but historically and ethically fraught, perpetuating colonial and eugenicist legacies.”
— Matt Chew, The Myth of Invasives (2018)
4. Doug Tallamy and the Gatekeeping of Native Plants
While Tallamy’s work has popularized native plant gardening, it often reiterates invasion biology’s ecological purism without questioning the political and cultural consequences of such exclusion.
“Calls for ‘native-only’ gardening can slip into a form of ecological nationalism, policing not just plants but cultural identities.”
— Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass (2013)
5. Daniel Simberloff and the Defense of the Paradigm
Simberloff’s empirical research defends invasion biology but largely sidesteps the field’s colonial, racist, and eugenic roots. His insistence on binary categories upholds an ideological framework masquerading as objective science.
“We must question the moralistic framework of invasion biology, which too often mirrors exclusionary ideologies rather than ecological realities.”
— Radu Guiasu, The Fallacy of Ecological Purity (2019)
6. Contemporary Critical Voices and the Way Forward
A growing chorus of scholars and activists calls for dismantling the native/invasive binary, exposing invasion biology as a pseudoscientific ideology deeply tied to colonialism and eugenics.
“The native/invasive binary is a tool of ecological imperialism, and only by embracing hybridity and coexistence can we move beyond these harmful myths.”
— David Theodoropoulos
“Decolonizing ecology requires uprooting the racialized and xenophobic assumptions embedded in invasion biology.”
— Matt Chew
“We must listen to indigenous knowledge and practices to reimagine ecological relationships beyond purity and exclusion.”
— Robin Wall Kimmerer
Rejecting Ecological Eugenics
Invasion biology is not neutral science—it is a pseudoscientific ideology rooted in historical eugenics and ecological racism. Understanding this legacy is essential for creating just, inclusive, and ecologically honest conservation.
On a personal note- I became a proud biologist in 2007 upon graduating from Texas State University. Two years later, I landed what- at the time- was my absolute dream job as a naturalist and outdoor educator for a nature park in central Texas.
For nearly ten years, I took countless private, corporate, school, church and other groups on nature hikes, canoe, kayak and raft trips down the Colorado River, I taught hundreds of children in summer camp, and hundreds more in classrooms across central Texas while working with a number of non-profits. I taught at a summer camp for adults who sought positions as outdoor educators. I did hundreds of presentations about “native Texas wildlife”, in a variety of settings. I coordinated educational workshops for the Texas Wild Rice Festival- a festival centered on river education and awareness.
I was absolutely steeped in the ideology of invasion biology during those years, and I regret that I misled people... I didn't know any better. Now that I do, I do my level best to have tough conversations with even tougher critics of my ideas- those who hold tightly to the ideology of invasion biology.
Rarely, I come across individuals who want to practice science the way it was intended to be practiced, and they listen to my “fringe” ideas. They ask for resources. I know I have changed some minds and that feels really good since the lives of countless plant, animal, fungi and other cousins hang in the balance.
Mostly, however, I am insulted, called a “stupid”, “ignorant”, “uneducated” or worse, and completely dismissed by people who claim science as their discipline but who seem to treat it like like a religion that requires defense.
Admittedly, after so many conversations where my intelligence is questioned, my name besmirched and my voice drowned out by ecological nativists if not completely silenced by being blocked or having my ability to reply turned off, I sometimes stride into a conversation already on the defensive… it's experienced defense. It's a girding of the metaphorical loin, because the conversations so rarely end well even when I keep my tone in check.
I came in hot on an Instagram post, recently, made by a friend who owns a local permaculture design business. This company featured a gentleman who runs a page called “Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't” by the name of Joey Santore. When I first started watching his content I thought he was hilarious. Then he started in on the ecological nativism. On the post I mentioned, in particular, he called my dear friend and cousin the crepe myrtle a “crappy” tree.
I get it. When I was an ecological nativist, I spoke the same way about those beautiful, pollinator-supporting, medicinal trees. I didn't know better and neither does he. But I aim to change that, if possible.
The natural world deserves better from us… we must no longer treat the natural world with distrust, suspicion and disregard. We must begin to truly see our animal, plant, fungal and other relations for the beautiful, autonomous, intelligent members of the same collective of which we are a part.
"Tears were coursing down Tim's cheeks in a flood, and he made no effort to check them. Astounded, awed, and humbled, Tim was weeping for sheer joy. He had, of course, long ago realized that what was before him was the cactus he had spent so many hours with. Recognizing it now made no difference, because now he was recognizing it for what it truly was - not just a cactus - indeed not a cactus at all, but rather a unique, unclassifiable individual whose moment in the thundering, never-ending drama of creation would never be repeated here or anywhere else in the universe."
-Daniel Quinn
A Note on Popular Voices: Joey Santore and the Perpetuation of Ecological Purism
While voices like Joey Santore’s Crime Pays But Botany Doesn’t have brought plant ecology to wider audiences with passion and irreverence, it’s important to critically examine the frameworks they promote. Santore’s emphasis on “native” versus “invasive” plants, delivered with his distinctive style, often echoes the rigid binaries of invasion biology without addressing its troubling ideological roots.
By uncritically endorsing ecological purity and demonizing non-native species, Santore’s approach risks reinforcing exclusionary narratives that oversimplify complex ecological and cultural realities. Popular educators have a responsibility not just to entertain or inform but to challenge outdated paradigms and acknowledge the deeper social histories embedded in the science they communicate.
If you got all the way through this, thank you. It is not my goal to knock aanyone off of a pedestal, but instead, to lift other important perspectives up into the light.