[hn_throwaway_99]

That to me seems like the wrong way to think about it. Of course most invasive species would come from Asia, because there was already free-flowing contact between North and South America, and there was already hundreds of years of contact between Europe and the Americas. East Asia was the place that was isolated from the Americas for the longest period of time.

I think a more interesting question is what kinds of organisms are treated as highly problematic invasive species in Asia from the Americas. That is, shouldn't we expect Asian species to be susceptible to novel American pathogens?

For example, it's famously known that diseases like small pox wiped out many Native American populations because they had no previous exposure to the disease. Perhaps less known is that it's widely hypothesized that a virulent strain of syphilis wrecked havoc in Europe after being brought back by sailors fro the Americas.

[brink]

Asia is not the only continent that's not connected by land with America.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Obviously not. But my point was that contact between America and Asia, in significant volume, happened significantly later than contact with Europe (and, by extension, North Africa, as there was always tons of contact between Europe and North Africa).

And yes, places that have been truly isolated from the Americas until relatively recently are also are places where novel invasive species and pathogens come from (e.g. HIV, Ebola).

[dubcanada]

I suppose that depends on if you consider ice to be land. Technically it is connected and there is record of travel between Russia and Alaska.

[hyperhopper]

How is Africa connected with America? How is Europe connected? Even if you count ancient ice connection, Asia is more connected than they either of those. Wtf are you talking about

[chris-orgmenta]

> Wtf are you talking about.

I request you to review and reword your comment, hyperhopper.

[hyperhopper]

I suggest you find something more substantial to complain about.

This is hackernews, respond to the core of my comment. From the guidelines:

> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

(Also, ironically by commenting on the post you disable editing, so you made your own request impossible)

[chris-orgmenta]

As soon as you are able to post something non-flippantly, then I will be able to respond likewise.

I agreed with your post and could expand upon it, but your attitude does not allow for it.

My comment was a soft ball for you to improve rather than doubling down, and for us then to move forward. I do see that my comment ironically broke guidelines too. We can both be better.