A forester is working to eliminate the velvet tree *Miconia calvescens* in Hawaii. The article discusses the need to move away from the traditional native-alien dichotomy in conservation, arguing that species should be assessed based on their environmental impact rather than their origin. Historically, non-native species have been unfairly stigmatized for threatening native species and ecosystems, leading to biased conservation practices. However, this distinction is increasingly seen as outdated and counterproductive, as ecosystems are changing rapidly due to factors like climate change and human activity. The concept of nativeness originated in the 19th century but has since been challenged by modern ecological understanding. While some introduced species have caused significant harm, many claims about their threat to biodiversity are not supported by data. For example, the introduction of non-native species has often increased regional biodiversity. The article highlights cases like the devil's claw plant in Australia and tamarisk shrubs in the U.S., where management efforts have not always been justified. It calls for a shift towards pragmatic, evidence-based approaches that consider the functional roles of species rather than their origins. Conservation efforts should prioritize whether species benefit or harm biodiversity, human health, and ecosystems. The article concludes that conservationists should focus on species functions, not their native status, to better address the challenges of a changing planet.A forester is working to eliminate the velvet tree *Miconia calvescens* in Hawaii. The article discusses the need to move away from the traditional native-alien dichotomy in conservation, arguing that species should be assessed based on their environmental impact rather than their origin. Historically, non-native species have been unfairly stigmatized for threatening native species and ecosystems, leading to biased conservation practices. However, this distinction is increasingly seen as outdated and counterproductive, as ecosystems are changing rapidly due to factors like climate change and human activity. The concept of nativeness originated in the 19th century but has since been challenged by modern ecological understanding. While some introduced species have caused significant harm, many claims about their threat to biodiversity are not supported by data. For example, the introduction of non-native species has often increased regional biodiversity. The article highlights cases like the devil's claw plant in Australia and tamarisk shrubs in the U.S., where management efforts have not always been justified. It calls for a shift towards pragmatic, evidence-based approaches that consider the functional roles of species rather than their origins. Conservation efforts should prioritize whether species benefit or harm biodiversity, human health, and ecosystems. The article concludes that conservationists should focus on species functions, not their native status, to better address the challenges of a changing planet.