Yeah,ok. First if this hierarchical society has done a pretty poor job is disputable because one could also argue that without the state and its border patrol there would be alot more of invasive alien species that destroy the habitat of other local species, if you do not know what invasive alien species do you should check the articles out that I link:
I do not want to justify the state and its hierarchy that is just a problem that kept me thinking what to do about in an anarchistically organized society.
"just having them gone would surely reduce that destruction"
Yeah, I agree with that but not all the damage is done by institutions but also by individuals; there are cases in which experts ( biologists, environmentalists and biotope preservation staff ) assume that clueless individuals or groups have taken alien species into a different habitat that causes many problems to local biotopes. The individuals are not identified the conclusion is derived indirectly by elimation of all other possible causes. To clarify these species did not migrate spontaneously in a natural process and were also not shipped in by institutions or corporations ( at least not officialy and the possibility that individuals did so is within the bounds of possibility because not all invasive species belong to rare species ).
I agree with you that there are several and severe damages done to the environment and habitats executed by hierarchical institutions like through the exploitation of natural resources and the externalities by corporations , state capitalists/socialists and so on.
The problem with the red king crab is for example caused by a hierarchical institution namely by the bureaucrats of the soviet union.
The argument that " force is often necessary " is not an assumption it its connected to the scenario that people in a control zone or inspection zone of a given state are forced ( may it be through refusal of entry or through removing the special ( contaminated with invasive species ) good) to act in a way the law of the given state demands it, again its not an assumption its how the border patrol is compelled to act by law and act so on a everyday basis. But of course physicall force is often not necessary because the travelers themselves comply to dump their special good after sucessful mediating (it is of course not on a free basis if they are otherwise forced to leave).
I mention this scenario because that is the common procedure in our hierarchical society to prevent the entry of alien possibly invasive species.
That the impact of invasive species is problematic for the environment is also not an assumtion it is a fact. That is the nature of invasive species; a species that has the potential of disrupting or destroying a biotope i.e. causes harm due to its behaviour in an alien ecosystem that is not adapted to them.
"and most species I see around me came from somewhere else already (some of them perhaps a hundred or two hundred years ago, but still)"
Yeah there are many animals and plants (mostly domesticated) which were shipped throughout half of the world for economical and recreational purposes. Mostly in the colonial ear for example but it continues to the present day. But this species were administrated by humans so their population and behaviours (like grazing) was kept in check. (Animal husbandry involved and involve also much of force and they are often kept in horrible conditions which I do not approve of).
"and without borders, where (geographically) exactly would one make the claim "you've moved this plant too far"... not to suggest keeping borders in any way... more along the line of where does a species habitat begin and end?"
There is no way to determine "exactly" that a person has moved this plant too far but if it turns out that a given alien species is disrupting an entire ecosystem is for sure one way to tell that its moved too far and belongs not to the given WILD (as in untouched) local ecosystem...because of its destructiveness.
I think people should be concerned about the impact of the animals, plants and fungi they are about to take into an alien environment. The disruption affect others.
There are factors which determine the habitat of a species there are of course not any straight drawn lines that is not the way it works. The habitat in whch a given species live is for example determined by temperature, moisture, food availability and predators occurence. Most wild species live in a habitat that features similar conditions like the habitat they originated. If they live in a different habitat they would eventually not survive because they are not adapted to the alien ecosystem or in the case of invasive species the alien ecosystem is not adapted to the alien species and there would also be a possibility that the alien species is not able to survive in the long run because its behaviours is destroying the ecosystem and thus its own basis of existence.
If a person takes a plant too far i.e. in an alien evironment an it turns out there are no natural predators who control the population of this species the population may experience a massive growth and as a consequence could be a possible threat to another species. (may it be because it has a faster reproductional rate or through a more efficient or aggresive food acquisition).
For clarification: I am not writing that all alien species should stay in their habitat of origin nor do I think they should be removed if they occur in non-origin habitats.
I am writing about species that are so aggresive, expansionistic and hostile to native pops in their non-origin habitat that they are about to destroy the natural emerged ecosystem.
The invasive species are moved per human action and therefore humans have caused the problem and are somewhat obliged to prevent harm to the "innocent" species may it be humans, non-human animals, plants, fungi or whatever. That is the reason why I think society anarchistically or hierarchically organized should be concerned about this.
" "permission", "validity", "advertising", "controlling goods", airports.....ugghhhhhh, i have no interest in any of those concepts/things, other than my desire to see them vanish or destroyed (even though i know this has almost zero chance of happening in my lifetime) "
Ok. I mentioned permission and validity an controlling goods in connection to the possible solution with administration, that it would need some sort of trust or backed up power to do its suggested task. Because in most case people would like to avoid inspection of their private goods ( I know another assumption -_-)
Advertising is a perfectly fine way to inform people it does not need to be subversive ( that is the only reason I can think of why you object to this way of mediating ) . Some zines could also be described as advertisement.
You are against airports? Because of their pollution and CO² output? Are you in general against aviation? Do you think humans belong to the ground? I hope you do not mind asking; are you one of those anarcho-primitivists?
I do love plants,too. Thats one reason why I am concerned about invasive species. I do not want to see the biodiversity destroyed by them. To be honest I do not know why you mention it, is this special plant categorized as invasive species? I know that they are an aggresive species but I think they are not categorized as invasive.
I know I mentioned alien species very often but any puns or pics related to xenomorphs is unnecessary. :)