And if humans are also part of the planetary evolution, why are the changes we create 'wrong'? Don't get me wrong, I am very opposed to damaging our precious world.
As another view, who is to say invasive species (water hyacinth, austrailian pine, walking catfish, etc.) would not have populated areas eventually. Maybe not here but somewhere? Although I agree that native species should be preserved, when did most of them become 'native'? What time frame decided that criteria? Many indiginous species were carried in from other places long ago and resulted in repopulating an area and wiping out who knows what. Why should we eradicate invasive plants and animals (either human introduced or naturally introduced) because they bring environmental changes? Because those changes are unacceptable to our idea of what the environment should be in any particular place. The major goal of humans controlling environmental evolution seems to me to be the betterment of human living conditions with nature taking a back seat, and only lately has the common man realized his impact on the nonhuman part of this world.
We must be very careful in our 'undoing' and 'correcting' also. Look what happened with Kudzu. Introduced as an ornamental in 1876 and later employed by the Soil Consevation Service for erosion control, it has taken over the south. So, yes, we should limit our human impact on the environment in my opinion, but as we are part of the evolution of this earth, how and how much?
Our world is not a stagnant vessel, changes are inevitable. That is my point, but I will agree that the human factor accelerates and alters the pace and direction of change. I believe we are tasked with the need to reduce human destruction and encourage conservation - whatever the species. Except kudzu. Oh, and hope that orchids take over the world.
Ok, my soapbox tipped over. Thank goodness!
Well, Mark and Diane opened the door .