Emma Marris, in the first two chapters of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, expresses her opposing view to the common traditions of conservationism that aim to maintain a “pristine wilderness” (2). The first chapter, “Weeding the Jungle,” mainly criticizes the practice of restoring nature to a state of its past. For years conservationists have rid ecosystems of invasive species, reintroduced native species, constructed elements that were once present, and created habitats in an attempt to bring back original qualities from the designated point in time. Although the outcome sounds tempting, such an achievement is practically impossible for several reasons. Firstly, the example of Hawaii that Marris described did not produce particularly spectacular results. Secondly, there is usually very little documentation about the point of restoration so there is no way to know how successful the project was anyway. Thirdly, executing these restorations consumes a great amount of time and money that the world simply does not have to contribute to the cause.
The reasoning behind the impossibility is further explained in the second chapter, “The Yellowstone Model,” which is mostly about how nature is forever changing. According to paleoecologist Feng Shung Hu, the stable equilibrium to which conservationists desire to return Earth’s ecosystems simply does not exist (Marris). The second chapter also discusses conservationists’ view of human interaction with nature. A significant point Marris repeatedly points out is that humankind has interfered with every piece of nature that exists on the planet. Even so, for a long time conservationists have seemed to believe that the best way to approach nature is to separate it from people altogether. It has been determined that in doing so, the United States would be “a white continent flecked with green here and there” (37). Furthermore, native people have been forced out of their homes so that the parks could be created and kept untouched. As for this practice, Marris argues for the exact opposite: “achieving coexistence between humans and other species” (32), which would allow for more nature to thrive and prevent the removal of indigenous peoples. In other words, she advocates for a ‘rambunctious garden’ – nature that is created and maintained by humankind.
Overall, Marris has developed a powerful argument. The conservation traditions that she rivals are widely known and accepted. However, she manages to bring to the table a different perspective – the ‘rambunctious garden’ – on conservation that has been previously addressed by few but never fully recognized. Challenging such broadly established practices is a difficult task, but she does it extremely well. Throughout the two chapters, Marris provides clear and strong support for her arguments. Offering plenty of examples, she proves that she is not just complaining about the failure of various conservation tactics and creating surreal solutions, but that she has researched those failures and thoughtfully crafted alternative solutions. If the rest of the book continues with a similar format of eye-opening opinions and substantial evidence backing change, by the end of it Marris’s arguments will have definitely influenced my outlook on conservation.
