The authors concludes that ecosystem restoration efforts are merely an expression of human preferences. This is certainly true. However, the introduction of non-native species has also been an expression of human preference. We have voluntarily introducing new plants and animals because we like them (ivy, scotch broom, Armenian blackberry, etc). We have accidentally introduced new plants and animals because we've been negligent (balast water). We have also disturbed "natural" ecosystems and created conditions that favor aggressive plants. So, to apply the author's conclusion evenly across the board we must ask which human "preference" we really prefer. By only calling restoration a "preference" while not acknowledging he other side of the coin improperly implies that the status quo neutral.

As far as the use of the term "natural," "native," "non-native," and "invasive," it seems like some of the academics are caught in language games. They appear to be attributing absolute definitions, then making value judgments on those definitions. In practice the use of the words is much more practical. Viewed through a pragmatic lense the terms are not problematic. While humans are certainly part of capitol N Nature, we can still recognize that there's a difference between how ecosystems function without a large human influence and how they function with a large human influence. We have dramatically influenced landscapes. The words we use simply enable a discussion of those impacts.

Similarly, native is as great way of saying "long time resident." One benefit it that native has fewer syllables. As far as the cultural baggage of term, so long as those cultural prejudices exist euphemisms like "long term resident" will eventually take on the same implications. I'd rather keep it simple.