In Chapter 8, Marris informs us of designer ecosystems. She begins by asking us to imagine a stream. The conventional idea of a stream is a singular curve with fresh water. However, Marris stops us there and tells us that’s now how streams have always been. The ones we automatically picture are man-made to be restored to a baseline… except that’s not how they were. Thus, millions of dollars have then been wasted.

“If our goal is to decrease sediment load, we should focus on that and not worry about making the stream look the way it did at presettlement time, because nothing is the same as it was presettlement (124). These efforts are more concerned (again) with turning time backwards instead of looking forward. Aesthetics, though not entirely irrelevant, seem to be receiving priority over more important problems. Marris writes that “restoration ecologists have been trapped by the seductive vision of healing wounded nature and returning it to a stable ‘natural’ state…they are beginning to see the possibilities of designing, engineering, cooking up something new” (126). Designer ecosystems allow ecologists to not bother with a baseline, which in the first place lacks enough information, to even conceive. Instead, they can tailor ecosystems to the current species and other problems, such as nitrogen levels that need to be tackled. Monitoring nitrogen levels also seems to be less consuming overall than attempting to remove species.

In Chapter 9, Marris sums up arguments and notions from past chapters, such as assisted migration, rewilding, exotic species, and novel ecosystems. Marris writes that though these approaches differ greatly, they “make the most out of ever scrap of land and water, no matter its condition. To make the most of our protected areas, we must think beyond their boundaries and complement our wilderness with conservation everywhere else too” (135). These places include roofs of buildings and factories, farmer’s fields, industrial rivers, and even our own backyards. While I understand utilizing the roofs of big factories, such as the Hostess one, it seems a lot far off to have ecosystems on every block of New York City. Marris deploys the gestalt switch as the perfect example of how she believes nature should be, “impervious surfaces—pavement, houses, malls where nothing can grow—as the foreground and everything else as the background nature” (135). Obviously problems can arise from this, such as a lack of organization, compromise, and more.

As I’ve said before, I don’t support the previous arguments of assisted migration, rewilding, and the invasive species. Marris ties everything together in “Conservation Everywhere”, once again discussing how the romantic idea of pristine wildness needs to be compromised and ultimately lead to a rambunctious garden. Instead of trying to revert back to an unknown baseline, she emphasizes seeing nature in a different light. Nature should be embraced, as it is a natural part of life, and should be found everywhere, even the most unpredictable places. This is a significantly optimistic and in my opinion, more realistic, beneficial, and beautiful outlook.

In Chapters 6 and 7 of Rambunctious Gardens, Marris presents two arguments on viewing exotic species. The conventional wisdom as of now is that exotic species are invasive. Marris quickly tells us, hwoever, that “the vast majority are not. Science is finding that some are quite well behaved and innocuous, or even helpful” (98). Be establishing this, Marris relates back to her original argument that we should embrace nature, not try and change it. She stresses that battling exotics is resourcefully consuming and unnecessary. Ultimately, she is saying that we, as humans, are the true enemy.

On one side of the argument are the majority of ecologists and conservationists who brands exotics as invasive. Marris presents extreme examples of this, including Bill Clinton’s executive order on war against invasive species and Shahid Naeem’s nighttime raids. There exists several arguments about how and why exotics do well in certain environments over others. Such explanations include lack of predators, lack of resistance, propagule pressure, and a reduction in the variety of life. Regardless of the reason, many still seek to obliterate non-native species from ecosystems in an attempt to revert back to a vague baseline. Marris combats these assertions by giving examples of beneficial organisms and inaccurate naming of exotics. She further informs us of how some ecologists are promoting and introducing exotics to help endangered species and hinder undesirable ones.

The opposing side of the argument are “a brave few” who embrace exotic-dominated ecosystems, novel ecosystems. Novel ecosystems refer to “the more dramatically altered systems” (114). In other words, an ecosystem whose composition of species has changed dramatically within the last few centuries—regardless of anthropogenic change. Marris hypothesizes that many are scared of change to explain the inclination of opposing exotic species. Exotic species usually kept in check by the surrounding organisms. The ecosystem as a whole is more stable and natural because of the lack of human intervention. Non-natives are hardly cited as the cause of extinction of other species. Even so, the extinction is a product of nature.

Ultimately, I agree with Marris and believe that the war on invasive species is an unnecessary one. Not only does it exhaust time and money, but it seems to be an endless circle which requires high amounts of attention. Exotic species are not new nor are they a recent phenomenon. I believe that “survival of the fittest” and evolution are a part of nature and therefore, should be allowed to happen on its own course. As Marris says, exotic species that adapt will create more diversity in the future. If a problem does arise to the point where the exotic does become invasive, they I think we should be able to deploy an extent of human intervention (which relates back to the notion of a rambunctious garden). “As the Earth responds to the changes we humans have made, does it make sense to destroy ecosystems that’s thrive under the new conditions?”

Emma Marris credits Dave Foreman with coining the term “rewilding” during the mid-1990s. The idea is that it is the responsibility of the large animals at the top of the food chain to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse. The argument is that these predators keep a check on populations by providing food competition. Without them, one species will dominate in numbers, devour its favorite foods, lead to simplification of plant diversity, promote the growth of medium-sized predators who put pressure on little creatures, ultimately leading to fewer species (Marris 60).

Pleistocene rewilding, in a nutshell, is setting back the prehumen baseline to over 13,000 years ago, before any species became extinct, due to human interference. However, the problem of already-extinct species arises. To compensate, scientists use “proxies”, similar species that exist today. Marris describes that other scientists have developed a new species, “with the express intent of mimicking the extinct”. The example given is two German brothers who used a number of cattle breeds to create the Heck cattle. Marris writes that the “Heck cattle…are unaware of the history of their kind or the role they are called upon to play in the ecosystem” (59).

Though the theory of rewilding may at first seem like an interesting and optimistic solution, it is quite impractical to me. I understand that many scientists and environmentalists are curious of how nature functioned before human beings, but force-introducing new species to an environment and maintaining it carefully is a very strong example of human interference. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a species will be a good fit in an unfamiliar environment. I understand the theory of using proxies. However, we are all aware that the environment today is very different from how it was 13,000 years ago. There are different surrounding animals and fauna, as well as atmospheric differences. There is no way of telling if the introduced species will die or thrive to an extent as to alter the whole ecosystem.

In the first chapter of the book, Marris says that the reason native species went extinct was because they grew up in isolation. Foreign species were able to adapt to changing conditions better. Therefore, they survived whereas the native species went extinct (6). By introducing proxies that have evolved in other ecosystems, there is no guarantee that they can adapt to the new one. This goes back to having to maintain and watch the species to make sure they don’t die. If this is done, they species will essentially be sheltered and may die if left alone. Marris has stressed a mostly hands-off approach to dealing with nature, as well as looking to the future instead of focusing on the past.

Lastly, Frans Vera, the mind behind the great Oostvaardersplassen, even states, “a natural ecosystem is better than a cultivated one”. This is extremely ironic, as Marris explains, “the whole place [Oostvaardersplassen] is cultivated, man-made, created.” Vera combats by saying that all man created were the conditions and nature did the rest. (70-71). However, I see the introduction of species as altering nature, as well as conditions.

Emma Marris immediately presents her standpoint in the fundamental environmental debate with the title of her book, Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Though “rambunctious garden” may seem like a paradox at first, the concept is fairly easy to grasp. “Rambunctious” as in letting nature run its’ course and “garden” as in allowing humans to oversee and manage. Marris states that this notion “creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left (3).

In “Weeding the Jungle”, Marris calls on history, statistics, and her own personal experiences in order to put into perspective how the natural world has changed at the hands of humanity. Additionally, Marris presents the notion of a pristine wildness (another paradox) and modern efforts to recreate it. She describes pristine wildness as a cultural construction of an idealistic world (15). It is impossible, Marris argues, to create a pristine wildness unaffected by mankind. Numerous difficulties prevent us from doing so: disagreements on baselines, sparse or non-existent information on what was present, extinct animal and plant species, atmospheric disparity, etc. Still, the pristine wildness approach dominates conservationists. Marris advocates that is only when that ideology is dispelled and modified that we can move forward. Marris also suggests that, depending on the needs and wants of people, “forests…can be managed to achieve a smorgasbord of alternative goals” (13).

The “Yellowstone Model”, the views and writings of past conservationists and romantics and their contrasting views are presented. Marris says, Americans “perfected and exported the ‘Yellowstone Model,’ based on setting aside pristine wilderness areas and banning all human use therein, apart from tourism” (18). This model has set a precedent of conservation, prompting other countries with “lots of land inhabited by few people—or by people with few rights” (25) to follow. The caveat of the Yellowstone Model is that it requires land to be “untouched”. This leads to the forcing-out of indigenous people, which we first saw in the Conservation in the Anthropocene article. Marris builds on this, stating that forcing native people out is ironic, as “their land had sufficient nature to interest conservationists in the first place. (26).

Marris, instead of holding onto accepted theories against human intervention, creates a unique approach that embraces humanity. I agree that trying to restore places hundreds or thousands of years back is fruitless and that we should look to the future. While I believe that saving species from extinction is necessary, creating and maintaining exclusive havens for them is not the way to go about it. Not only do these refuges require a lot of time and resources, but also sheltering and isolating species is what led to the demise of many (6). The belief in a pristine wildness may be the ideal for many, but it is far from realistic in the world that we live in. Humans have altered the world too much as is to return to such a state. Marris put it best when she wrote, “layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future, rather than the past, is the cutting edge of conservation” (14).