ComparisonGlobal1395

Arbitrary is probably the wrong word to describe it, since 'invasive' technically has a defined meaning, but it's not a meaningful one in this context in my opinion. Following the chain of definitions down in the us, an invasive species is:

- not a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in [the] ecosystem.

- does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

As far as I'm able to tell, there's no more precise definition. So, to expand on my original comment, what does 'historically' mean? 1000 years ago? 10,000? How long ago did an animal need to arrive to join the club?

the latter definition is decided on by the 'National Invasive Species Council'. It seems overly broad to me in an ecological sense in that a great deal of native species cause economic harm to humans, and many occasionally cause harm to our health, but are not considered worthy of eradication(thankfully). The house sparrow absolutetly causes economic harm and there are quite a few studies I find trustworthy proving as much.
the singular example I could find of the council changing their mind on a species that isn't livestock is the honey bee, so I guess it's possible, but probably should not be held up as the standard for naturalization.

So, the house sparrow is definitely invasive by definition, but the fact that it is called so does not have any bearing on if they're a persistent threat to the ecosystems they inhabit. This all to say that using 'invasive' as justification doesn't make sense to me, since it doesn't necessarily indicate anything pertinent to the question at hand.

As for the last, that's not quite what I mean. We should protect the earth's ecosystems from damage and destruction, but we should not try to keep them completely static against the flow of time. We as a species have a unique responsibility in getting to decide to an extent on what changes are good, acceptably bad, and unacceptably bad. House sparrows are an interesting case because they rely heavily on human-made environments. This means that if they crossed the now-ocean prior to human settlement, it's unlikely they would have thrived. It also means that they aren't a measurable risk to the more rural ecosystems, and almost entirely affect cities and farms, which are already unnatural.

Do you disagree with anything I said?

For the last, I approach this with a personal sense of morality in mind. That is, an acceptable approach must balance the ethical impact of our actions with what is best for humanity. House sparrows are a fairly intelligent, highly social species, and I take killing them to be a moral wrong, meaning there must be enough gain to justify it. I don't doubt that a purely rational perspective that only seeks to gain the most benefit for humanity would advocate for their eradication(though it'd also almost definitely do the same for many native species who are 'pests').
Trees do not have any moral value under my belief system, nor most people's, and thus we are free to ignore their 'needs', and instead we must balance the needs of the animals they affect, and humanity's goals. My understanding is that their presence negatively affects animals in ecosystems they inhabit by reducing the growth of native trees which they rely on and are generally slightly negative for humans, except as ornament. Arguments against their culling would then be
monetary cost(as compared to monetary benefit),
the ecological impact of the actual process(I imagine many animals would be negatively impacted by humans rolling through their homes with bulldozers and leaving empty ground until the native flora can take back over),
any animals that *do* benefit from them,
or defeatism; the belief that humans could not kill or reduce them meaningfully.

This is to say, I don't have enough knowledge to give an actual stance(I'm much closer to an ornithologist than an arborist, though I'm certianlly neither), but I don't find the comparison to be quite the same.

In one of my other comments to you, i mention a book that implies that the only reason to allow an animal to live despite being an inconvenience for humans is if it 'pays' for it by being a benefit to humans, and find that to be an absolutely horrid way to look at the world around you.

Will reply to the rest later. I appreciate everyone's time, but I find myself without enough to research and reply to all this! I'll get more free time in the next few days and can catch up/