Novel ecosystems theory was recently founded by Australian Professor Richard J Hobbs, et al. This theory argued that many historical ecosystems on the Earth had been transformed due to human activities and had crossed an irreversible threshold and could not be restored to the historical condition. Therefore, the biotic and abiotic elements and ecosystem function varied remarkably. This variation was indisputable; hence, human beings should become more responsible, and the past activities, planning, management, and policy of ecological reservation and restoration need to be reconsidered. The characteristics, attributes, and succession tendency of novel ecosystems need to be investigated for implementing innovative management, planning, policy, organization, and technology practices of ecological reservation and restoration. However, these ideas have spurred vigorous debates. Some research scholars contended that there was no need to develop a new label for the transformed ecosystems, because the global ecosystem continues to change at a larger temporal and spatial scale intervened by physical and anthropogenic disturbances; the definition of novel ecosystems was still impaired by logical contradictions and ecological imprecisions; it challenged the current practices of conservation and restoration since it could render decision- and policy-making difficult. Nonetheless, unanimous agreement was obtained on the fact that some seriously damaged ecosystems had profoundly degraded; therefore, investigating the nonlinear mechanisms, thresholds, resilience, new paradigms, and features of damaged ecosystems was necessary. Hence, rational and deliberative restoration options need to be considered, anthropogenic intervention degree and the possibility of success need to be cautiously studied, and scientific optional actions and standards need to be identified.