Veeky Forums, what's the point of protecting local ecosystems from invasive species?

*steals your vegemite crops and women*

You could take the let-nature-be-nature approach

Why not let your computer get infected by any and all invasive viruses?
Equilibrium = useless computer

Why not let your body just get infected by any and all invasive parasites, bacteria, viruses?
Equilibrium = dead body

If it is a system you depend on, maintain it.

Fuck off we're full.

So what I'm hearing is a lot of "I don't know".

America and all of Europe should open the doors to all the Syrian, and middle eastern refugees. They should also grant anyone that steps on their land rights and citizenship. Also, Europeans should industrialize the rest of Africa. Even if it means enslaving every native.

Also something something they don't fit in the niches of what they're replacing correctly or at all. The "global ecosystem" can't be "standardized." Blah blah blah. Ecosystems would collapse, you should kill yourself.

OP, just try to think, you are human you should be capable of that. Invasive species are called invasive, as they are not native to the land. Let's take your example - Australia. Since it's an island, animals have a hard fucking time migrating to it, especially in quantities to overthrow native population. However humans build fucking ships and other equipments for travel, which these animals can (and do) use to travel large distances. How are you considering animals traveling on the back of humans natural? Humans have been the catalysators for invasive animals to overthrow natives.

>Explosion of foreign rabbits is followed by an explosion of foreign foxes is followed by equilibrium. Right?
no thats wrong and has been known to be wrong for atleast 50 years, jesus ecological literacy is shit. i have read about people living traditional lifes that cant even read and are way more knowledgeable than you are, because they arent detached from the world they live in
it ends in a barren hellscape you mongoloid
>If we stopped trying to preserve exotic or endangered species and just let natural selection do its thing, could we, ultimately, "standardize" the global ecosystem?
if by standardize you mean reduce to a highly entropic, uninhabitable hell hole
t post doc focused on eco-evolutionary dynamics

>stabilize over time, right?
No.
>what's the point
All species aren't equally desirable, weeds grow better than edible crops and pretty flowers, pigeons are more annoying than sparrows. In a global cage match lots of desirable species would lose to undesirable ones.
>endangered species
This is where I part ways with environmental conservationists. It's obviously good to wipe some things out like mosquitoes and polar bears, or destroy 'natural' environments like sahara and siberia by turning them into farmland.
If a species is so irrelevant as to be endangered in the first place I don't see a point to trying to preserve it.

this. Picture this nightmare scenario
>introduce rabbits to australia
>they rapidly reproduce starving out all other prey animals.
>spider population fucking explodes as they devour ridiculously over populated rabbits
>spiders completely obliterate rabbits
>humans next
It's just a matter of time. Protect Australia's ecosystem for the safety of all mankind.

>f a species is so irrelevant as to be endangered in the first place I don't see a point to trying to preserve it.
what kind of reasoning is this?
>there are few of them
>so they are irrelevant
both polar bears and mosquitoes are crucial for the functioning of their ecosystems by their tropic interactions alone. epsacially mosquitos as the t1 basis of the food chain and key pollinators. get hip to biodiversity and complexity in ecosystems brainlet. i pull ticks out of my ass pubes that are better people than you