'We've done more damage with less people over more area in less time than anybody in history.' I love the succinctness, and the no-nonsense clarity and directness of this statement. Packs a lot of truth in a small space.
You should mention that Permaculture requires design, which means that those non-native species are calculated into the system, not just added. If you have large areas without a current working ecosystem, and you introduce only one plant, which is capable of filling a local niche, and working towards succession, it will take over. If you introduce a number of plants all designed to work together, no one will dominate. Thanks as always.
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
@@DiscoverPermaculture Also read "Where do Camels Belong" as well as "The War on Invasive Species" and "Rambunctious Garden". They also deal with the subject and support your viewpoint.
Bill used to call those who only want to grow natives Ecological Fascists . Seems in the comments section there is a few of them . And to them listen to what he is saying . The planet is in a terrible state . Growing loads of biomass can actually fix many of the issues with pollution. It’s something that isn’t talked about, they’re more interested in selling us electric cars instead of simple solutions that Geoff and his team have been teaching us for decades . Thanks Geoff .. really appreciate your hard work . Respect
You have got that spot on Freye. How the Nazis Embraced Environmentalism: www.encounterbooks.com/features/nazis-embraced-environmentalism/ The globalists have gotten a hold of environmentalism for their own purposes. Greta Thunberg in front of the UN? What a con. The yacht she sailed on, at one point belonged to the Rothschilds. Extinction Rebellion operates in the exact opposite way to what Bill recommended. As to the nativist, they are some of the most dangerous types around. They harbour fascism in their hearts.
@@CorwynGC I've been trying to do this for over 25 years. Many of these zoning and land use regulations defy logic, and defy humanity from its collective inalienable rights (my opinion). Even when you have gathered the money, after a lifetime of toiling in accordance to/with 'the system', you are still not allowed to even prune 'native vegetation', outside of 5 1/2 acres, even if you own 52.6 acres, without an agricultural permit, despite the land naturally being classified as 'native desert'. Let's just say I went behind the governments back, and created a sustainable, passive solar community, but didn't let anyone in during wshtf. Contemplate that, starting in reverse.
@@CorwynGC I know. That's why I joined Geoff's class. Been scouting land near me to do it locally, instead of waiting to find that perfect spot. Also looking into leasing options. Leasing a greenhouse. ANYTHING!
People have always taken plants with them during migration. That is how we got so many friut and vegetables. Birds drop seeds during migration . Storms and hurricanes can spread new seeds, insects and animals to new places. There are so many ways new plants are introduced. Just like human immigrants plants in a new area may struggle to adapt but after a time thrive. And in a time those immigrant plants become a fixture in that ecosystem.
Ecosystems are not static. Any time we speak of "natives" we're talking about taking a snapshot of some point in time and pretending that "the native ecosystem" looks like that snapshot. It's invariably an arbitrary moment in time. For example, if we go back 15,000 years from the current date, my location in SW MI was under the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Scraped bare, effectively no plants in the region, soil buried under who knows how thick a sheet of ice. And it was like that for many years. A snapshot of that ecosystem would include no "native" plants beyond algae. Move forward a thousand years, ice is receding, and plants have reappeared, every one of which "invaded" the area. Snapshot of that ecosystem won't look like one a thousand years later. And again, in that next snapshot, everything there is an invader, it's just a question of when. Climate changes, ecosystems adjust in response. There is no static "native" ecosystem, anywhere.
Good arguments & points, Geoff...I tend to generally favor "natives," as ambiguous as the term can be, but your arguments are sound and give some credence and comfort to the change. Even in the classic, top selling native plant book, "Bringing Nature Home," Professor Doug Tallamy opines for an eventual balance...
Please read www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551 and www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274
Jeff I cannot help but take the discussion to Homo Sapiens. I believe we are much better off racially intermarrying. I see the mixed genetics backgrounds in the world and see the beauty of, for example, black genes and white or Chinese. The “ hybrid” is most often very attractive, imho.
My problem is fast spreading plants overtaking everything else. Might balance out in 10 or 20 years, but when working to produce food now, invasives (regardless of where they came from) are a real challenge.
Design turns the problem into the solution, you don't have a headache because your body has a deficiency of Asprin, that is just what big pharmacy wants you to think. The headache is a symptom, invasives are a symptom too, don't attack the symptom use the symptom to find the cause and cure the problem.
You mentioned, "novel ecosystem thinking", recently, regarding a comment I made about cane toads helping to control the mosquito population. This explanation of novel ecosystems, helped me to understand your reference, more specifically. Thanks for that. I also enjoyed seeing your native landscape. It reminds me of my backyard, only ours is not quite as lush. We get less rainfall. But there is a special energy, when nature plants herself. I appreciate how it can only add more, to the domesticated areas of food production.
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
Finger limes might become more domesticated! Growing one in NZ but your exactly right Geoff. Native birds here self seed the trees they seem to live even out plum trees etc.
I so enjoy the book The New wild your the first person I've heard speak of his studys. Nature has her way and as my spiritual teacher reminds me, Life Happens.. so enjoy your Q&A Thank You.
This was a fascinating video full of insightful facts and insightful comments I hadn't heard before. Is there a rule of thumb about what percentage of novel landscape versus cultivated?
50/50 is what you would want to end up in i rekon, aslong as you dont go over that with exotics all the natives should be able to coexist in the area id imagine, we have to share the land with the natives its only right,we know what happens to natives people when foreigners dont share the land, the natives become extinct from the area, or they become opressed, taken over, and there freedom is taken from them.. i just cant believe people treat the plants with more respect than the actual native people lol if i, as a native, try plant non native fruit in a national forest, they would probably cut it down.. forbid i try build a house and sleep there lol its a weird one, get rid of the people and then dont let anyone use it till u wanna ruin it completly, brattish behaviour forsure stealin land and selling it off daily those fake estates are, hard to buy land that isnt stolen these days,if i stick to my native area i dont have to feel like im livingon some1 elses land lol and thats the best feeling ever, just wish theyd letme live on my land without selling it back to me like a full on scam artist
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
The novel ecosystem debate is always a hot one. I do believe we need to end our war on invasive species. First, the poisons we use in this fight are worse in their impact than the invasives. Second, the invasives are becoming new species and generating new species out of the native species interacting with them. So we need to calm down and get our heads around what exactly is going on, rather than reaching for the war metaphor at the drop of a hat. That said we need to be cognizant of the needs of native biota in our designs. Doug Tallamy, an American entomology professor and native plant advocate, is a great source of information and inspiration. His angle of thinking is one that should incorperated in our designs.
What war on invasives? They are still the stock industry standards for professional landscapers to use for gawdsakes, lol! And if American colonialists could hunt ~4 billion Passenger Pigeons into extinction and 60 million bison down to just 541 in about 20 years...you're telling me they couldn't do the same with invasive plants (even without herbicides)?
@@blajing You are right, we are schizophrenic about these things. We can buy the invasive bush and the carcinogenic herbicide that is recommended to kill it a few aisles apart at our local big box store. That said, we do need to ditch our constant use of the war metaphor in dealing with invasive species. It leads us to do dumb things. We need instead to get our heads around the ecology of the situation
glad to hear you offer some balance to the native at the exclusion of novel more edible ecosystems discussion..........so true too, the wildlife loves my backyard food forest. It's universally ignored by most that keeping only or mostly native species in human zones only forces us to execute industrial ag elsewhere, out of view of the locale of the observer and in the end use way more energy and habitat destruction. This is a way too common misconception of the larger system machinations at play.
Hi Geoff, I live in a tropical climate country where there is a variety of different inhabitants dwell. I was planning to plant some exotic plants ( such as some of your recommended rampant weeds and tamarillo) that I have never heard anyone else in my country have planted before. Would love to hear your thoughts!!!
I notice that you are fond of using Leucaena as a pioneer tree/bush and as mulch. Being in Arizona, it tends to grow well here. As far as I can tell there are no thorns (a rarity here!) and it is, of course, a legume so it helps fix nitrogen. I've read it is allelopathic, is this true? Do you not worry about it suppressing other plants' growth? I'm not worried as a mulch because I'd compost it and that breaks it down but if I left it as leaf litter or even growing in certain spots I wonder if it'll affect my other plants?
I do agree with your premise on non natives. Almost every plant and animal consumed in the USA isn’t native. But here in the USA we have non natives destroying ecosystems
to johanna. The newest ecological theory on this is based on the idea of ecological fitting, which describes how ecosystems are defined by species that best 'fit together'. As long as there are ecological niches to fill, nature will balance itself out through darwins theory of evolution. Evolution is best described by the theory of natural selection of course, which states that ecosystems are in constant flux fighting in competition and ecosystem changes, climate pressures and sexual selection, predation etc allow those who are best fit to survive.... survive and pass on their genes, etc. etc. this allow novel invasives to occupy niches that are left blank by habitat destruction or because other species cannot compete. There is no final succession, nature is always changing. This is shown in ecosystems across the world, who are losing species, but gaining new ones and ecosystems are shifting and continuing unsless disturbed by human activity. Anyhow like Geoff said this is best described in fred pearce's work a new wild
@@inharmonywithearth9982 its a sad reality that we have to face. It is important to embrace all species and harness biodiversity, but where there is no biodiversity in the first place, we might as well make it economically useful for humans..... because after all, humans are the reason for these extinctions, not invasives. Yes, invasives can smother native succession and render natives extinct, but these balance out and like geoff's example do succeed like any other ecosystem. Indigenous people knew about succession and it's importance but modern society is clueless. Even at my uni, they plant natives without regard to succession, weeding and spraying as if it were a bandaid. Ecologists need to engage with succession, not try to control it through invasive culling and weeding.
on your university, unless it’s an overgrown thicket, you’re going to have “weedy” species germinate at the edge forever. Invasive plants won’t grow in an old growth forest, they’ll happily grow right on the edge...
I plan to use black locust, leucaena and eucalyptus as pioneer trees to establish a food forest in a rather arid region of turkey where there is no ground cover at all. These three species are all non-native to eurasia and so i wonder wether i could use them without harming the environment more than helping it... Also there is kudzu, probably the worst invasive weed i can imagine, do the things you said also apply for these extreme cases? I would never ever plant it but it is also a great nitrogen fixer, just saying
@Cameron Horner Yes i know. In turkey there quite a few eucalyptus forests where nothing grows but eucalyptus. still i believe with heavy pruning they produce lots of biomass and can be great pioneer trees. i would try to implement something like ernst götsch did there in brazil (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gSPNRu4ZPvE.html)
The example of Native Americans vs. non-Native people is apples vs. oranges. People are not plants. The differences there are social whereas for plants it is biological.
In this video, Geoff speaks off the cuff based on a student question, and demolishes plant nativism. Are only native North Americans welcome in North America?
Not that you'll read this and just my uninformed opinion - what we consider "native" is just in our miniscule timeframe. I bet if you extend time long enough where tectonic plates shift together, plants and wildlife would also migrate due to proximity changes. it's simply evolution. humans have only "sped" up the process because we figured out how to move ourselves and nature extremely far and fast. but, hey, aren't us humans part of nature? are we not part of the ecosystems? what I'm trying to say is, nature finds a way and lots of things hitchhiked with us humans and we all adapt to each area. I really don't think "invasive" is the right term. it's just a plant or animal that has genes that allow it to do what we all do... replicate and feed in their new environment. and that may just save certain environments, mainly reviving the soil and even bring back "native" species that would otherwise die out.
Hi Ethereal Rose you are right some plants that are rare and endangered thought to be endemic there we now know were once prolific in England during the last ice age
I agree completely. We aren't the only ones who transport other species to non-native areas. Just look at other migrating animals, the trade winds and the ocean currents. There are many species that were displaces, island to island, hopping across the pacific and other oceans, many who crossed land bridges during times of lower ocean levels, many who hitched a ride on birds and other migrating animals. No ecosystem is static it is always changing, and yes, we are a part of the change, but not the only influence. We are likely one of the only species that is aware of the significance of it's impact, but we are not the only species or force to make an impact on the changing ecosystems. We have a list of "invasive species" in our state in the US, many of which we have on our 5 acre property, growing in our new growth woods (10 years ago it was a traditional farm). Many of them are pioneer species which may have been introduced recently, but have a positive impact on the succession towards old growth forest and many are edible. So I don't mind them. I harvest harvest many of them.
Since any analogy goes, I've got one. Next time a pushy or aggressive person walks into your house and demands to live there, you must let them. Because that's what plants do.
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
Agree with every ecological points made here, Thanks Geoff. The comparison with Native Indians in North America and alien Europeans is a poor one, though. Outside of islands, invasive plants tend to fix - on the long run - previous damages made on the ecosystem. All "invaded" ecosystems were previously affected by environmental destruction. Europeans arrived in Americas in healthy ecosystems and human communities, and committed systemic destruction, genocide. And the natives didn't, and will never "love it". The persistence of the invaders culture as it is will means the destruction of the whole nature and native's culture. So, very different scenario here.
Yes, I'm shocked that Geoff thinks that invasives "may be the salvation of Earth." Tell that to the millions of birds & reptiles eaten annually and 20 mammals driven to extinction by invasive feral cats in Australia, for instance! www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/asia/feral-cats-australia-intl/index.html He even contradicts himself when he first claims that wildlife love the novel ecosystem filled with invasives...but later admits that there is no edible food there for him or the birds (who all prefer his cultivated food forest). So, how can novel ecosystems "save the world" if they can't feed it? Surprise, surprise...reality check. Fact is, most native food chains require specific, symbiotic relationships between their links evolved over eons - like Monarchs and Milkweed. extension.umd.edu/sites/extension.umd.edu/files/_docs/programs/master-gardeners/Montgomery/Tallamy%20Handout1.pdf So based upon the latest research, the ideal ecosystems would be at least ~70% native, with up to ~30% non-natives, and 0% invasives. Non-natives are not needed in any native ecosystem, although there is still room for some. However, there is a HUGE difference between (non-invasive) non-natives and invasives (which pose existential threats - like the colonialists)! www.popsci.com/yard-native-plants-birds
They were Christians that happened to be European, Europeans got slaughtered by them Before they Went to the Americas. People and plants are diffrent subjects.
Please read www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551 and www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274
@@blajing "the birds (who all prefer his cultivated food forest)" Watch again; this isn't what he says. He says the birds have no prejudice about either system. The problem with invasive species is not the species itself, but whether it is part of a complete ecosystem. If you bring a new element into an ecosystem but don't do your Permaculture due diligence and determine all the inputs, outputs, and functions, you may well create a chaotic system. That is why Permaculture is a DESIGN system. Also remember that we are generally talking about abused and broken ecosystems. NO ONE would suggest adding non-native systems to first growth forest. The point is that we have near destroyed our ecosystems, and will require non-natives and even invasives to get it back into balance (done extremely carefully). Especially if we plan to maintain the completely ludicrous number of invasive humans.
@@CorwynGC I think his stance is confusing because he's a bit confused on this. First, he seems to use "non-native/exotic" and "invasive" interchangeably, when they are really CRITICALLY different. Yes, ecosystems can handle a fair minority of non-natives (and arguably even some "benign" invasives like Dandelions). But, what really degrades them are destructive invasives. Kudzu, Burmese pythons in Florida, and Postlithic humans, anyone? I'm not sure why this is even up for debate? www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-have-invasive-pythons-impacted-florida-ecosystems So at 5:12, he purports how non-natives can often increase diversity...which might be true. But, HIS novel ecosystem also contains INVASIVES - which birds "without prejudice" avoid like the plague for feeding...as they ARE actually prejudiced in favor of places with edible food, lol. Similarly, I'm sure all the other wildlife in his novel half also only use it for shelter, while they have to forage beyond it for actual food (as Geoff basically said he'd have to do too). Geoff himself even seems to suffer some mild cognitive dissonance while making these real-life observations that contradict his initial talking point? Now, don't get me wrong...I'm a huge fan of all his other work, which is why I'm so surprised and confused by his position on this one?
Problem with this though is that such birds spread the invasives more, which vastly decreases plant diversity, which then malnourishes all wildlife (even native bumblebees!). menunkatuck.org/conservation/plants-for-birds/invasive-plants-destructive-to-the-environment-natives-are-more-suitable-alternatives/ www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/uoc--abd051519.php Not to mention, some of the invasive berries themselves are not only less nutritious, but actually toxic! ar.audubon.org/news/nandina-berries-kill-birds Look, most invasives irreversibly disrupt and degrade native ecosystems. Don't drink the rationalizing Kool-Aid - the destructive ones really do suck. Modern history is already replete with countless examples of this...
Very poor choice of words about the so-called """"indians"""" from North America, that was totally out of place! And just for the record, geographically, North America includes Mexico and Cuba too. And that the arrival of the oh, so wealthy culture of the old continent ""enriched"" the indigenous Americans and native ecosystems by destroying them in many ways, not only that, but they also turned large portions of fertile American land in to desert by substituting the native Americans ways of cultivating crops like chinampa, milpa, three sisters, swales, composting, ancient permaculture, etc with the "classic" way of agriculture of the m. east. And should know better that certain species of trees attract certain species of birds and insects, foreign species of vegetation disrupt that cycle in many ways to list them here. Also, I don't know if he's aware that in America (and when I say America of course I mean a continent, from Argentina to Alaska) there are a lots of problems with several introduced species of animals and vegetation, just to name one, just one... The sparrows!!! Which were introduce by English men to ""enrich"" the native American landscapes and right now sparrows are a huge problem in all America by displacing hundreds and hundreds of native bird species and sparrows are totally thriving on those 'novel forests' of foreign trees, very few native species of insects, birds and other animals benefit of those oh, so good ""novel ecosystems"". This is constructive criticism, Mr. Geoff. I appreciate your work, but there are points in this video which need a better approach.
Plus fact. While it is true that the native wild plant of the tomato has it's origins in the Andean region, the domestication of the plant in to an edible fruit took place in what's now known as Mexico. Also, all the variations of tomatoes that were cultivated during centuries in Europe, Asia and Oceania all came from the Mexican strains of tomatoes and that's why even the word 'tomato' has it's origins in the Náhuatl word _'tomatl'._ The domesticated tomato strains from the Andean region weren't exported to other continents until just a few decades ago.
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
@@xolotlmexihcah4671 Many older people of NA call themselves Indians. The ones I have listened to are gentle, wise beings. It would be thoughtful of us to listen to their words rather than triggered by adjectives. They tend to call people like me whites. So be it. I was born here. Am I native? It doesn't not matter. I am a being.That is what matters. Anything can be made to feel negative if that is your intention. It is better to be kind in all ways.
I'll add this: Nature finds a way. Mr. Darwin wasn't kidding in his thesis. Evolve or die off. Sparrows clearly have an evolutionary advantage... right now. Another "native" species may take the reigns in 10, 20, 30 who knows how many years. I know it always feels painful seeing species we grew up around dying off to some new Chinese plague or somesuch but that's simply evolution. And guess what? Nature plays the long game. We are on this plant a very, very finite amount of time. Nature has been doing this for millions of years. I won't say humans evolved from muck or monkeys (I have no idea) but I'm sure we've evolved in ways from our prehistoric ancestors (Neanderthals, anyone?)We all find a way or die off. Long story short, I think Geoff is playing the long game (as long as us humans can go) and trying to reestablish forests, soils, and ecosystems using ANY plant that can do it is the correct approach. What good is it bemoaning the loss of parakeet over a sparrow when every animal is dead from lack of food, habitat, and water?These "foreign" animals and plants have an advantage because they've evolved and can help reestablish life... and I'll bet you anything the old "native" species will come right back as well because the pioneer "invaders" revitalized the area for them to thrive again. Just a different way to see it.Edit: I still have no idea how to format my comments
@@etherealrose2139 I think along this line as well. "These "foreign" animals and plants have an advantage because they've evolved and can help reestablish life... and I'll bet you anything the old "native" species will come right back as well because the pioneer "invaders" revitalized the area for them to thrive again."
"should america be only for native americans or are non natives welcome with all there ahhhhh" hahaha well.. it depends if the exotic plants are going to opress the native trees and not let them live on there own land like the non native americans and australians do i suppose, could end up like tasmania and completly whipe out all of the natives.. but really im native growing fruit so i believe in mixing in exotics into native forest, i jst dont like the way you said it lol maybe YOU with your line of work would be welcome.. but really who else would be lol ofcourse non native americans arent welcome to the natives they opress and thats the point, if the foreign plants can respect the natives and leave them alone and only help them then theyd be welcome ha depends if they like sharing or if they just wanna take over and cause extinction kinda like the english ivy ;)
Please read www.amazon.com/Inheritors-Earth-Nature-Thriving-Extinction/dp/1610397274 and www.amazon.com/New-Wild-Invasive-Species-Salvation/dp/0807039551
Exactly, you just made a key distinction between non-natives & invasives - which Geoff oddly doesn't here. IOW, you may view all exotics on a continuum, with non-natives on one end and dominating invasives on the other. What the current research suggests is that ideally you should shoot for at least ~70% natives, whilst allowing up to ~30% non-natives (even including non-dominating invasives like dandelions or purslane). With that wide of an allowable bandwidth, there really is no justifiable need for the minority % of dominating invasives. Because more than likely, the costs of any dominating invasives will vastly outweigh their benefits in the long run. Just ask the millions of aborigines, old growth forests, animals, and plants severely depopulated or driven to extinction by the colonialists. Which BTW, is still going on today as the planet's 6th mass extinction is in full swing!
@@DiscoverPermaculture what about the plants that take over the water systems n stuff like as much as some help i think some can also cause alot of destruction, never heard of a fruit tree doing anything but giving tho, except blackberries they might take up alot of space without humans living out there, they wanna turn the bush block here into a cemetary so im claiming it bac first with fruit trees and if i catch some1 touching my fruit trees look out :p to plant in the protect plant species area or outside where the ride on mower can get that is the question geoff.. ill plant it all out i have 30 mandarin seeds look the fuck out lol i feed the possums lots of seeds in fuit but i dont think anythings sprouted yet oddly.. youd think thered be apple pear kiwi and strawberry everywhere out there by now its been a good 5 years ill have to go have a good look.. good luck more like it lol
Try and imagine a developing European, North African and Asian world that never came into contact with the stone age? Major cities on one side of the world in 2019 and people still using stone axes on the other side of the world. No, I can't imagine it happening either. We don't come into this world as saints. Shit happens. It actually happens for a good reason. Now let's try and imagine another scenario, what if the indigenous of nations like Australia, America or the Pacific nations had have developed first? What evidence is there that they would not have conquered, murdered or plundered? We know that Pacific Island nations were head hunters. We know that North American Indians went to war with each other, sometimes whole tribes would be wiped. The same in central and South America. It is for that reason that many Indians helped the European, out of sheer animosity for other tribes. We know from 'Narrabeen Man', that Aboriginal nations were also capable of murder. Shit happens, because we are full of shit, no matter how much things appear to be like paradise.
