Marris wraps up her book with a chapter titled “A Menu of New Goals”, most of which I did not find that new. The list of seven, (protect the rights of other species, protect charismatic megafuana, slow the rate of extinctions, protect genetic diversity, define and defend biodiversity, maximize ecosystem services, and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature) seemed to be those which conservationists already have had in mind. She did however, relate them to her idea of the rambunctious garden in a few ways, such as suggesting that we change our subjective perspective of what “nature” can be so that we may find spirituality and beauty in not just “pure wilderness”. Most of the rest was a summarization of debates among conservationists and the clashes between goals they are still experiencing. She points out several problems with only focusing on a single goal, and obviously ties everything together by telling us we need to balance goals carefully. In my opinion, balancing of goals is something everyone knows already. Getting people to agree with each other, having the wisdom to discern the best thing to do, and having the power to execute plans are the main concerns. However, I did feel that the points she made afterward in the “Juggling Goals: section were more thought-provoking.
Marris claims that conservationists dislike talking about the costs of projects and that it is considered impolite to discuss something like money matters in the face of the grand project of saving Earth’s wonders. I, like Marris, think this is a ridiculous and impractical way to approach things. In order to achieve the best results, conservationists have to face the reality that not all projects are the most logical or efficient way. This is especially in regards to restoring certain historical baselines as Marris has mentioned in past chapters. I would also apply this to possible solutions she offers like Pleistocene rewilding, which seems like it would be too much of a hassle for an operation that would need to be heavily managed. Her command to “preserve open land” is something with which I also agree. All land is still part of nature, and even protecting a weedy lot from urban development is a great step. This kind of thing is something I think people intuitively desire already. Her final idea of using distinct parts of lands for specific ends is an interesting idea. Some would be for historical restoration, some for species preservation, etc., in an attempt to reach different goals at the same time. I feel that this might sound like a wonderful idea on paper, but would be rather difficult to execute in real life. With problems of jurisdictions and the strong organization needed for such projects, I am not sure if this could be a successful practical application. As Vitousek says, he would love to see ahupa’as restored to various historical baselines, “if [he] had the power the chiefs used to have…”, meaning having the kind of strong authority and execution ability. Disagreements over which part of the land is most suitable for which goal are sure to arise and interfere with good causes.
All in all, Marris ends the book with some strong points and calls us all out to be rambunctious gardeners. Whoo!
