In the final chapter of her book, Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris outlines seven major goals of conservation. However, her point is that there is no single goal that will be suited for all situations. Marris believes we need to let go of the pristine and focus on common goals for every piece of land.
The first goal Marris presents is the biocentric view of life, which aims to protect the rights of other species. This idea is also termed “deep ecology,” believing that all living things have intrinsic value and should be protected. Of course, ecologists do not agree on which species should hold more value than others. Hence, when choosing between the rights of cats and the rights of albatross nestlings they are destroying, there is a great deal of uncertainty among deep ecologists (221). As a result, conservation based on biocentric goals is going to differ depending on perspective.
The second goal Marris presents is the idea of protecting the charismatic metafauna, or the very large animals that humans love. Such species include whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, tigers, pandas, etc. While it may seem selfish of humans to prefer larger species, scientists have found that many of the most popular are keystone species. Meaning, these species are integral parts of the ecosystem and as a result, preserving them would mean helping to preserve the species that live alongside them. However, simply focusing on one set of species can get highly emotional and is not always guaranteed to provide an umbrella for the lesser-advocated species.
In presenting the third goal, Marris cites Hugh Possingham, an Australian mathematical ecologist, to show that slowing extinction rates does not always protect ecosystems. Possingham believed that the extinction value of every species was equal and as a result, we should focus on the more financially feasible protection projects. This means that some favorite species will be lost because it is too financially taxing to invest in their cause. It also means that protecting species is sometimes implemented through captive breeding programs to be efficient with resources. Hence, the mathematical approach to slowing extinction is not all encompassing.
Goals four and five focus on protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity. Defining these terms are crucial to developing plans for conservation. Some organizations choose to focus on protecting animals that are genetically “weird” in hopes of preserving millions of years of evolution. In the case of biodiversity, the complexity of ecosystems makes it difficult to pinpoint what needs to be preserved. As a result, there is a lot of gray area when tackling conservation from the perspective of preserving biodiversity and even genetic diversity.
The last two goals of maximizing ecosystem services and protecting the spiritual/aesthetic experience of nature provide contrasting approaches to conservation. Focusing on ecosystem services is a practical approach that realizes we have finite resources that need to be preserved. However, this approach does not account for biodiversity or aesthetic beauty. On the other hand, the idea of protecting nature for its spiritual and aesthetic qualities is an emotional approach that attributes value to the beauty of nature. Hence, we must once again choose between what is practical and what we value.
Altogether, these seven goals stress the need for compromise. We cannot simply view conservation through a single lens. Each party involved in the conservation effort of a piece of land must decide what their individual goals are and find common ground between those goals. This is the idea of the rambunctious garden, where there are different chunks of wilderness in different places conserved with different motives.
