Nobody asked for my opinion, but here it is anyways: 'invasive' or 'aggressive' species are indictive of ecological disharmony
The occurrence of which IS natural, but always eventually balances out (unless artificially maintained)
Eventually, the plant/ animal/ fungi/ whatever will be predated on and population reduced in size, so it doesn't crowd out entire species or destroy entire ecosystems anymore. This can look like hogs eating large patches of fireweed, or black smut fungus infecting a cherry monocrop.
If left alone, garlic mustard takes approximately 10 years before it's population starts to die down (I'm not sure what leads to the degrowth), and I'm positive that with enough time, an animal or plant disease will move into or evolve to eat it in North America.
Every single species in every single ecosystem has been new or 'invasive' at some point in history. Why it's so important to manage them now is because civilizations have already caused ecological disharmony across the globe, and plenty of species are endangered. So instead of waiting for the destruction phase to pass, ecologists are attempting to artificially predate on these new species, and keep endangered and endemic species and ecosystems alive.
Because the food chain is being absolutely destroyed, and we rely on it for existence.
This is not to say that we should be cruel to invasive species- they are not doing anything wrong. They do not deserve to be curb stomped or shot or fucking tortured like too many people have proudly filmed themselves doing "for the environment".
And what a vast majority of ill-informed people are doing is falling into nazi ideology; they fetishize a specific "primordial" environment untouched by "undesirables", be it invasive species or select groups of people. Which is completely ahistorical.
Most humans alive today have never seen an environment in harmony. Most humans alive today have never seen real topsoil or rock lichen at work or 2000 year old trees.
Besides, the environment is always changing, it will always be changing. A swamp eventually fills and turns into a forest, which can be burned down by lighting, be colonized by primary species, and grow right back into a forest. It's called ecological succession.
Plants are supposed to be eaten and felled. When environments are overgrazed and exploited, they can turn into badlands and dust bowls, which are their own ecological niches, but ones that are hostile to mammals.
And whilst the tiktoker was slightly off, they were right that a lot of what is called 'invasive' actually just means "agricultural pest". Because we actively choose to poison the land with pesticides instead of eating insects like weevils and cockchafers simply out of habit, not bc we can't.
And we actively choose to use herbicides instead of companion planting because it's easier to harvest monocultures. It doesn't give us more food, actually it increases chances of famines
The system we have is fucking stupid.
If you wanna kill an invasive species, then at least eat it or use it in some way. Or kill to protect a specific plant or animal (not it's entire species; it's not possible or sustainable for such little people to do). If it's a plant, you should replace it (grow mycorrhizal fungi & mix it with compost + plant the seeds of a fast-growing native or naturalized species like dandelion).
Killing for the sake of killing.. well, it's really no better than European settlers shooting bison from moving trains.
