Every Species Was Once an Invasive Species: Concerning the Ubiquity of Selective Pressure

The efforts to identify, and slow the progress of, so-called “invasive species” have occupied the time and energy of botanists, zoologists, park rangers, and good-hearted volunteers over the last several decades.

Who would not want to protect the presumed “native species” from these invaders?

Two aspects of such invasions should be made explicit. First, such encroachments are usually not anthropogenic. Second, such incursions are inevitable.

Species were invading each other’s habitats long before humans had the ability, by means of long-range travel, to accidentally or knowingly introduce alien plants and animals into new domains. Insects clinging to driftwood can cross oceans. Fish eggs on the feet of waterfowl can travel from one inland lake to another.

If a species is originally confined to one habitat, then it is certain that it will one day either go extinct, or it will find its way into another habitat — and thereby become an invasive species. A microbe or a plant originally found in Africa will, sooner or later, arrive in Asia, Europe, or the Americas — or it will become extinct.

The species which now seem to be the native species in a given domain, whether it’s a North American grassland or an Asian rainforest, were once invaders. There was a time when those species were not to be found in that place. The arrival of those flora and fauna into the current location had nothing to do with humans.

In a tendency analogous to entropy, all the species eventually swirl in slow-motion around the globe. Every species is an invasive species, and by the same token, every species is a native species.

It is also inevitable that the vast majority of these species will eventually become extinct, and this again will not be an anthropogenic process.

Any effort to stop or slow invasive species may be aesthetically productive, but the judgment about which species has the right to be in a particular habitat is at best unclear, and the efforts to stop such invasions will ultimately fail.

Archaic Greek Religion: Its Inability to Hold Adherents Fostered the Birth of Philosophy

One important preliminary question, when examining the archaic Greeks, and even more so when examining pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, concerns the relationship between the Greeks and their religion.

It is common among historians to treat archaic Greek religion - and Classical Greek and Hellenistic Greek religion - as a matter of personal belief. This approach to ancient Greek religion is perhaps influenced by the effects of Jesus, which began around 35 A.D.

To retroject this approach to religion onto 700 B.C., or onto 500 B.C., is anachronistic.

Instead of seeing archaic Greek religion as analogous to religious belief as manifested over the last two millennia, as analogous to medieval and modern conceptualization of Judaism or Islam, it is perhaps more accurate to see archaic Greek religion as a cultural or societal reference point instead of a personal faith.

By way of comparison, the archaic Greeks may have treated their gods in the way in which twenty-first century people treat figures like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, like Darth Vader or Yoda, like Uncle Sam or the Energizer Bunny.

In sum, the archaic Greeks may not have ‘believed’ in their gods in the way in which twenty-first century people believe in Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, or Abraham — in God, Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah.

The small ‘g’ in the archaic gods may denote that the ancients did not have a personal belief in their deities in the way in which medievals, moderns, and postmoderns have a personal belief in their God.

Even a scholar of the rank of Eduard Zeller may have fallen prey to the temptation to think of archaic Greek religious belief as analogous to the Christian faith as manifested in European culture.

Zeller seems to credit archaic Greek religion with properties that fostered the birth of philosophy. It might have been more accurate to credit the archaic Greeks with a lack of religious belief that fostered the birth of philosophy.

In this text, Zeller seems to credit Greek religion with qualities that nurtured philosophy, whereas it was perhaps the Greek lack of religion that fostered philosophy:

Die Religion der Griechen steht, wie jede positive Religion, zur Philosophie dieses Volkes theils in verwandtschaftlicher theils in gegensätzlicher Beziehung. Was sie aber von den Religionen aller andern Völker unterscheidet, ist die Freiheit, welche sie der Entwicklung des philosophischen Denkens von Anfang an gelassen hat.

Perhaps, when he alludes to the ‘freedom’ which archaic religion gave to its followers, and to their development of philosophical thought, Zeller is correct. But he is perhaps incorrect when he sees archaic religion as in any way related to philosophy.

As Nietzsche wrote, it is precisely in the break with archaic religion that philosophy is born: in the break with mythology. In this case, ‘mythology’ means narrative as explanation — and therefore includes true myths as well as false ones. But archaic religion was essentially mythic: it used narrative as explanation.

By contrast, the birth of philosophy yielded explanation without myth. The first philosophers — Thales, et al. — were not necessarily more ‘true’ than the archaic religion, but they were more rational.

For these purposes, the ‘archaic’ era in Greek history can be understood as lasting from approximately 800 B.C. to approximately 480 B.C.; being a construct and not a concrete bit of data, such an “era” cannot have clear or precise beginning or ending points.

The loose grip — the lack of personal faith — which the archaic Greeks had on their mythological religions had the same salutary effect that the tight grip — the profound personal engagement — which the medieval Christians had on their faith. The Greek lack of faith and the medieval surplus of faith both nurtured philosophical thought.

The pantheon of archaic deities and demigods served primarily to fuel poetry, painting, storytelling, sculpture, and other arts. Their ubiquity in literature and archeological findings should not mislead the modern student into thinking that the archaic Greeks incorporated these gods intimately into their inner lives.

The archaic Greeks did not relate to their gods in the personal way in which twenty-first-century people relate to Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, or God.

The relationship of the archaic Greeks and their gods was probably like the relationship between twenty-first-century people and figures like Batman, Spiderman, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy.