Did you know that honeybees aren't native to the Americas? Imagine the first bears to discover honey. I'm sure that they were pretty happy about the discovery, except for the part about the stings. I'd sure love to be able to see and know exactly what difference the introduction of honeybees has made, and will make. For example, none of the 1000s of different species of orchids native to the Americas have evolved to be pollinated by honeybees. But there are certainly some native orchid species that can be pollinated by honeybees. Then what?
My best guess is that honeybees in the Americas will lead to a net gain of biodiversity. The bees, given that they are different than the native pollinators, have increased the diversity of the demand for flowers, which will increase the diversity of the supply of flowers.
Except, even though it's likely that the introduction of honeybees to the Americas will result in more biodiversity, their introduction goes against the premise of conservation. Conservationists definitely would not have approved the introduction of honeybees to Americas. They would have vetoed it, which is why I'm not a conservationist. Instead, I'm a herclivationist.
"Herclivation" is another one of my made up words. It represents the idea of deliberately doing things to increase biodiversity.
The difference between herclivation and conservation is perhaps like the difference between consequentialism and deontology. As a herclivationist, I don't have a rule against the introduction of life. My rule is to judge an introduction based on its impact on biodiversity.
Admittedly it's super tricky to precisely predict the outcome of any introduction. We can't precisely predict what would happen if hummingbirds were introduced to Africa and Australia, but we know that doing so would increase the diversity of the demand for flowers, which would increase the diversity of their supply.
What would happen if Tillandsias were introduced to Africa and Australia? Tillandsias are epiphytes that prefer niches that are too dry and bright for most other epiphytes. Right now in Africa and Australia the preferred niches of Tillandsias are largely unoccupied. If Tillandsias were introduced to Africa and Australia, then they would fill these niches and provide shelter and food for a wide variety of animals. Tillandsias would essentially create new niches for more life.
What about introducing kangaroos to other parts of the world? I'm guessing that lions would vote for their introduction to Africa.
In any case, it can't be the rule that an introduction will result in a net loss of biodiversity... otherwise there wouldn't be any biodiversity. Life is synonymous with colonization. If there ever was any life that didn't colonize, then it inevitably learned the hard lesson of keeping all its eggs in the same basket. An underwater thermal vent that forms the foundation of a thriving habitat can cease to function at any time. Just like our planet can be destroyed at any time. The one job that Nature gave us is to distribute life to other planets.
Now you know my opinion on the topic of conservation versus herclivation... what's yours?
