Rethinking “Invasive Species,” Ecological Purity, and Human-Centered Narratives in Restoration Ecology- A Chat with Chat
Over the course of this conversation, we critically examined the foundational assumptions behind invasion biology, ecological nativity, and the ways in which these concepts reflect deeper social, political, and historical forces—often with ideological baggage that has gone unchallenged in mainstream ecological thought.
1. The Myth of the “Invasive Species”
The term invasive species is widely used in ecological literature and practice to describe non-native species perceived to cause harm to the ecosystems into which they’ve been introduced. However, this framing is increasingly criticized as scientifically unsound, politically loaded, and morally suspect.
We explored how most so-called “invasions” occur only after an ecosystem has already been significantly disturbed by human activity—agriculture, urbanization, deforestation, pollution, and climate change. In these cases, the arrival of new species is less an act of ecological aggression and more a response to open ecological niches left by human damage. New species often serve to stabilize, filter, or even revitalize degraded ecosystems—functions rarely acknowledged in the dominant narrative.
When these species are scapegoated for the collapse of “native” systems, the result is a simplified morality play: they’re cast as invaders or villains, distracting attention away from the true agents of ecological disruption—humans and their economic systems.
2. “Nativity” Is a Human Construct, Not an Ecological Reality
The notion that species "belong" to particular places—that they are “native”—is a product of cultural thinking, not scientific consensus. As evolutionary biologist Matt Chew and others have pointed out, ecosystems are not static, and species have always moved, shifted, and adapted over time in response to changing climates, geological events, and species interactions.
The nativity concept breaks down when confronted with the facts of deep time: during glacial and interglacial periods, entire communities migrated; oceans rose and fell; continents shifted. Species arrived, adapted, evolved, or disappeared. To freeze ecological time at some arbitrary moment—say, pre-Columbian 1491, or pre-industrial 1750—as a benchmark for “nativeness” is unscientific and ideologically arbitrary.
This leads to the uncomfortable truth: there is no scientifically consistent way to define nativity across time and space. And if nativity is arbitrary, then restoration efforts based on restoring a “native” past are built on unstable philosophical ground.
3. Historical and Ideological Parallels to Xenophobia and Purism
We discussed how the obsession with purity in ecological restoration echoes xenophobic ideologies, including those deployed by fascist regimes like Nazi Germany, which paired ideas of racial purity with ideals of ecological purity. The German project of returning landscapes to their "original" or "natural" states was directly tied to their broader eugenic and nationalist agendas.
Although modern ecologists aren’t advocating genocide, the ideological undertones remain: the idea that some species inherently “belong,” while others are intruders, creates a binary that is morally fraught and scientifically hollow. It mirrors nationalist logics that have been used to define who belongs in human societies—who is “from here” and who is not.
These parallels aren’t just rhetorical—they reflect a shared conceptual framework that assumes a past purity, territorial entitlement, and justification for removal of the “outsider,” whether that outsider is a plant, animal, or person.
4. The Corporate Interests Behind “Eradication Ecology”
The industrial solutions proposed for managing “invasive species” are often highly profitable for chemical and biotech companies, especially Monsanto (now Bayer). These corporations have cultivated relationships with ecological restorationists and public land managers, providing both funding and products for eradication campaigns—especially herbicides like glyphosate.
This has led to a form of “restoration as pesticide marketing”, where native purity becomes the justification for widespread chemical use, despite growing evidence of harm to non-target species, soil health, water quality, and public health. The use of poisons to “save” nature reflects a deeply contradictory ethos: killing ecosystems to heal them.
Academic research is also implicated. Scientists often rely on corporate or government funding tied to the “invasive species” framework, and journals tend to publish studies that support the dominant narrative. Dissenting voices—those suggesting coexistence, ecological benefit, or functional roles for non-native species—are often marginalized or dismissed as fringe.
5. Ecosystem Function Over Ideology
Rather than focusing on species origins, a more productive ecological lens looks at what roles species play in a given ecosystem. Do they support pollinators? Stabilize eroded soils? Filter nutrient-polluted water? Provide forage or habitat?
If a species contributes positively to an ecosystem’s resilience, productivity, or biodiversity, its geographic origin is largely irrelevant. Restoration grounded in ecosystem function and systems thinking would recognize that novel ecosystems—those composed of mixtures of native and non-native species—are not inherently bad. They are simply different, and often necessary in an era of rapid environmental change.
6. Parallels to Human Migration and Identity
We expanded the conversation to include human concepts of nativity. Just as species have always migrated and evolved, so have people. There is no biologically coherent definition of a person being “native” to a place—only historical, political, and cultural narratives that serve power structures.
The language of nativeness is often used to enforce belonging and exclusion, particularly in settler-colonial contexts. It mirrors the ecological narrative in that it mythologizes a static past and demonizes change, migration, and hybridity. These binaries are not just inaccurate—they’re dangerous. They obscure the real questions of justice, contribution, and care.
Conclusion: Toward an Honest, Inclusive Ecology
We should leave behind the “invasive/native” dichotomy, which is based on shaky ecological reasoning and infused with cultural biases. A truly scientific and ethical ecology would focus on:
System function over species origin
Dynamic interactions over static purity
Healing ecological relationships instead of enforcing political boundaries
In doing so, we move away from colonial, purist ideologies and toward an ecology of responsibility, in which humans acknowledge their role in disturbance—not to dominate or “cleanse” ecosystems, but to participate in their recovery, alongside all the life forms now present.