Can anyone tell me if humans fill the definition of the term "invasive species" by its current scientific definition?
In Antarctica, yes.
@Pat Is this exclusively due to "introduced" or would other factors preclude the classification on other continents?
Is the term based on any timeline? I am operating under the assumption that humans emerged in one place and spread. Is this in any way relatable to the "invasive species" definition?
Wikipedia kind of dances around the topic, assuming the current ecosystem. I don't really have good sources here.
I am trying to find out if "Humans - the original invasive species" would be a reasonable slogan.
>"I am trying to find out if "Humans - the original invasive species" would be a reasonable slogan."
I'm sure there were invasive species long before humans evolved.
No one has a monopoly on the term, but I think humans in Antarctica meets a lot of the criteria -- recently introduced, environment can't naturally support the population (over-populated), and they're doing environmental damage (I think only one station is currently carbon neutral). Some of the scientists are killing some individuals of some species there, so that's harmful to those individual lifeforms.
@Pat Oh, so the humans in antarctica narrowly fill the term, but in terms of environmental damage it would be more fitting anywhere else, the humans are just not introduced recently?
It depends on the definition. If "invasive" means introduced anywhere where the species didn't evolve as a species, then humans would be invasive all over the place. It also depends on whether being over-populated to the point of unsustainablity is a requirement.
It's rhetorical, really -- what definition you give the term.
@Pat Thank you for your patience! I think my idea was not as great as it seemed, but i think i got some new understanding out of this.
Also, I think humans are excluded from some definitions.
@Pat Hmm, that seems like cheating.