Given the increase in demand for drinking water, land in upstate New York should be set aside for hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking.

Underneath New York state is the Marcellus Shale, which is one of the largest shale formations used for natural gas. Hydrofracking is a technique that pumps millions of gallons of water, sand, and other chemicals below the Earth to fracture underlying rock and thus pump the natural gas located in the shale to the surface. While hydrofracking does raise question about where to dispose “flow back water,” it is possible for the fluid to be disposed in proper injection wells, which are located in other states. With cooperation by states, they can insure that the fluid is properly disposed.

Even though hydrofracking has many opponents in New York, it reaps many added benefits to the state including large amounts of natural gas. It is estimated that hydrofracking will produce 410 trillion cubes of natural gas reserve. Furthermore, it will also create jobs; in fact, approximately 13,491 to 53,969 jobs will be created as a result of this project. Future job growth is also anticipated; by 2025 one million jobs will be created. Moreover, the state also benefits from hydrofracking with gains estimated to be $2.7 billion and $1 billion in federal, state and local taxes (514). Thus, economically, New York state will benefit tremendously from hydrofracking both through job creation and increased revenue for the state.

For the New Yorkers who are skeptical about the benefits of hydrofracking, currently 90% of the 14,000 wells have undergone hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, state officials also imposed regulations on the gas industry regarding drilling methods to ensure that their methods are safe. In fact, the rules imposed by the state of New York are “‘equivalent to the federal Fracturing Awareness and Responsibility (FRAC) Act of 2011.” Under New York state regulations, the industries must show state officials that there is a significant amount of impermeable rock between the well and groundwater before they can start drilling.

In addition, another added benefit of hydrofracking is that it is a “cleaner source of energy than oil and coal.” Given the United States reputation as the largest consumer of petroleum, adopting natural gas as another means for energy will led to significant economic benefits. For example, it will reduce dependency on oil and create a more “stable energy market.” Moreover, the cost of natural gas is relatively low, which makes it a great alternative to petroleum for fueling various modes of transportation.

Those who are against hydrofracking, oppose it for few reasons, one includes the increased likelihood of earthquakes. While this is a valid concern, more research is needed to explore the correlation between “oil and gas production and seismicity.” Furthermore, many opponents claim that natural gas will release unsafe amounts of methane into the air; however, they fail to acknowledge that the EPA has significantly reduced the amount of methane emissions through the New Source Performance Standards NSPS. Through its regulations on hydrofracking, will ensure the same level of safety.

Therefore, the benefits of hydrofracking drastically outweigh the minor negative claims. Land in New York State should be used for hydrofracking because through this project it will lead to the creation of jobs, increased revenue for the state and less dependence on petroleum for fuel.

Source: Nolon, John R. and Polidoro, Victoria, Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides? (2012). 44 Urb. Law. 507 (2012 Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2066780      pgs(507-522)

Chapter 10 of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden provides seven goals for humans to follow so that we may move towards solving the ecological preservation conundrum. In short, Marris advocates we “give up romantic notions of a stable Eden, be honest about goals and costs, keep land from mindless development, and try just about everything” (170).

Marris’ first goal entails protecting the rights of other species. All of nature has an inherent value, or land ethic, that covers every living and non-living feature. However, this can be tough to adhere to at times when the rights of certain species conflict with another.

The Marris asserts, “The land as a unit has a right to run itself without human meddling in some places” (156). By practicing deep ecology as opposed to shallow ecology, humans can learn to care for the environment while simultaneously caring for themselves.

Protecting charismatic megafauna is Marris’ third goal. The term charismatic megafauna refers to species that humans like and are more inclined to save. Such animals include whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, tigers and pandas – all big mammals with big eyes. When protected, these animals become keystone species that can lead to the umbrella conservation (or unintentional conservation) of species that live alongside them.

Next would be to slow the rate of extinctions. Every species should be equally worthy of protection. This means creating “conservation hotspots” and zones where endangered species live together. One of the problems, however, is that “narrowly focusing on stopping extinctions…saves species but not necessarily ecosystems” (160).

Fourth is to protect genetic diversity. Unfortunately, the distinctions between species are not always clear-cut and this lends to obscurity when deciding which groups of organisms are eligible for endangered species protection. Marris argues, “if the genes are more important…then you don’t even need to keep living populations going in zoos…All you need are the sequences” (162).

Marris continues on to promote the idea that we must define and defend biodiversity. Protecting biodiversity is an illusive concept that emerged in the early twentieth century. Marris jests that biodiversity is the “shorthand of complexity” for it can become extremely intricate. In fact, biodiversity may end up being the most problematic conservation goal because there is so much to it.

Marris’ sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem service. Although the “what have you done for me lately” argument seems like an unrealistic one in ecology, Marris declares we must not treat resources as inexhaustible and valueless. Instead, we can create a mutual relationship in which both humans and our environment can benefit.

Lastly, Marris champions we protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. While everyone’s ideal image of nature differs, we must remember that it is not always pristine.

Marris concludes her chapter and book by stating that no one goal is better than another. While some are more or less feasible and others are easier said than done, we can all agree that nature, “…a place to refresh our spirits or to contemplate something that is grander than ourselves” is too precious to mistreat (167).

In the final chapter, “A Menu of New Goals,” Marris lists the various goals conservationists hope to achieve. Since most of them have apposing views of conservation, they tend to have varying opinions on the importance of the goals. The seven goals that she identifies are: protecting the rights of other species, protecting megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services and protecting the beauty of nature.

Many of these seem like obvious goals conservationists would want to achieve but the problem is that some of these goals can conflict with one another. The previous system of conservation was attempting to achieve a pristine wilderness by reaching the baseline of an ecosystem but seeing as how this method can be incredibly cost-ineffective and time consuming, narrowing conservation into numerous goals seems like a valid alternative. Nevertheless, several problems with achieving the goals also stream from lack of funding and conflicts between human values of land and the effort willing to be put in.

The first goal, protecting the rights of other species, is an extremely long held debate that has led the emergence of numerous animal rights groups and a ton of legislature. The argument usually stems from humans considering themselves top of the food chain and using animals for their own benefits. What makes it ok for humans to eat other animals? And what makes it ok for humans to use animals for experimentation? Nevertheless, it is still a very difficult goal to achieve because humans tend to favor certain exotic and beautiful species and turn their backs on the less favorable ones.

Protecting megafauna and slowing the rate of extinction have the problem that protecting megafauna may lead to the extinction of numerous smaller species that are prey to the megafauna. Protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity are great goals but the sad truth is no matter what, we will never be able to protect every species.

Protecting the beauty of nature, on the other hand, seems the most achievable and the one goal that everyone can agree on. I am fairly certain that everyone enjoys seeing exotic and beautiful nature, which seems to be the sparkle at the end of the story where no matter how many different opinions on nature converge, they can all agree on this final goal.

In the end, I enjoyed reading Rambunctious Garden. Going in, I knew little of conservation efforts around the world besides trying to save endangered tigers donating a small monthly payment of $19.99. While reading the book, my views of conservation definitely changed and now in many ways, I support the arguments of Marris.

In chapters 8 and 9, Marris discusses methods of conservation called designer ecosystems and conservation in areas we may not have thought of before. Essentially she tells conservationists to begin looking into the future and creating something that will be valuable instead of aiming for some point in the past. She explains that designer ecosystems will embrace current conditions and work to better the present state. For example, old ships will be sunk to create habitat for coral reefs and numerous fish species. “But the most radical kind of designer ecosystem is not emulating any baseline at all but building de novo to achieve a particular goal.” Such goals include nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, and maintenance of an endangered species. For example, the Galapagos penguins had trouble surviving because an introduced specie of rats ate the chicks. Ecologists argued that removing all the rats would be nearly impossible and incredibly inefficient, so they drilled nesting holes in rocks for the chicks to hide. Finally, instead of returning the penguin habitat to a particular baseline, they simply improved the current conditions.

Along with designer ecosystems, Marris suggests conservation should be broadened to places we have never though of. As the title of the chapter suggests, “Conservation Everywhere,” conservation should essentially spread everywhere beginning with privately owned ranches and farms. Farms and ranches are essential because they cover roughly have of the ice-free land and they supply perfect conditions for various plant and animal species. Marris suggests farmers get paid for letting several bird species fly on their land and live on their plantation. Another are of interest is industrial space, which can be infused with a ton of green. This will allow for water to be absorbed by the plants and reduce the heat island effect by absorbing sunlight. Lastly, she suggests people begin to plant their own private, rambunctious gardens wherever possible. Planting endangered species will allow for a more fruitful existence and pollinators will be able to spread said species.

I believe that both designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere are excellent methods of conservation. People and governments have spent too much money on attempting to bring back the past when they could have simply allowed for a better future such as in the case of the Galapagos penguins. Of course, there are always hidden variables and possible outcomes that have not been accounted for, but the failures and undesired outcomes of restoring ecosystems to their baseline far outweigh those of designer ecosystems. Second I believe that conservation everywhere especially by people planting any chance they get is essential for preserving nature and making aesthetically pleasing environments. Green roofs are probably the best solution in giant urban environments, which could not only have positive effects of conservation but can also introduce numerous economical benefits. One of which is that people can grow produce on roofs and amount to some economical gain.

Throughout Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris discusses about the unachievable “pristine” ideal of an ecosystem in today’s world. In the last chapter, she describes seven goals that society and individuals should focus on in a collaborative effort to conserve and nurture nature—goals that may not always work altogether, but decided upon based on the unique situation.

The first goal Marris proposes is to protect the rights of other species—claiming, “all living things have intrinsic value” (154). Therefore, ecologists need to decide how to protect and save specific species.

The second goal Marris states is to protect charismatic megafauna. As “keystone species”, megafauna ultimately have a significant influence on understanding how an ecosystem functions and appears (156). However, this goal fosters some controversy since the argument of saving and protecting one species over the other is a very heated topic.

Marris mentions a third goal of decelerating the extinction rate by distributing resources to specific endangered species. This may be slightly probomatic since people groups have very different beliefs on which endangered species should be saved and protected.

The fourth goal Marris describes is to protect the genetic diversity in an ecosystem. The fifth goal mentioned is to “define and defend biodiversity” (the varied species within an ecosystem). This can be achieved through hydroseeding, gardening, and reforestation (among others). This is especially an easy goal many people can accomplish in their own backyards. Man-made bird feeders and private/public gardens help protect the local environment.

The sixth goal stated is to “maximize ecosystem services” to get as much human functionality out of the ecosystem. This means employing and applying policies such as financial incentives and taxes. While money is a great motivational factor, it unfortunately highlights an impression that one has the power to destroy and a superficial control over nature through money.

Finally, Marris describes the seventh goal as to safeguard the spiritual and/or aesthetic experience of nature. I especially agree with pursuing this goal because nature exists to be appreciated. Such beauty and unique-ness of an ecosystem is relaxing, comforting, mesmerizing, and, sometimes, indescribable.

Nature is not static—it is extremely fluid. It has been altering and changing for millions of years, and it will continue to constantly evolve. Society makes the mistake of defining ecosystems as something that is only beautiful when “pristine” and should be kept preserved for years to come. Hopefully, with these seven goals, individuals and groups in society work to conserve the fluidity of nature.

The tenth and final chapter of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World is entitled “A Menu of New Goals.” Rightly so, the chapter presents a list of goals that Marris suggests for when “you admit that you can’t put things back the way they were” (219). With this list, Marris manages to come up with conservation hopes that solve any problems possible instead of trying to solve everything. Goal 1 is to protect the rights of other species, which follows along with Marris’s recurring argument that humans can and should coexist with nature. Goal 2 is to protect charismatic megafauna, which is the preservation of large mammals that humans like. Goal 3 is to slow the rate of extinctions, which is to assign all species equal value. Goal 4 is to protect genetic diversity, which is to transcend the concept of a species and save animals of varying genetic composition regardless of their label as a single species. Essentially, this will conserve as many organisms as possible. Goal 5 is to define and defend biodiversity, which regards whole ecosystems as more important than the individual species that make them up. Goal 6 is to maximize ecosystem services, which is to conserve mainly those ecosystems that provide something beneficial to humans other than preserved nature. Goal 7 is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, wherein conservation is done simply because humans like the look and feel of nature versus the usual reasons of maintaining wildlife and the environment.

Marris distinctly points out that “the final lesson is that no single goal will work in all situations” (220) and that “there is no one best goal” (243). Given that, some of the goals that she presents are quite contradictory. This is not a flaw on Marris’s part, but just something that will forever be an issue when it comes to the matter of conservation. In fact, Marris does a pretty good job of covering the different schools of thought on conservation. Still, there will always be different views and opinions on what is best for the planet, which Marris uses to her advantage in promoting the concept of the rambunctious garden: “In different places, in different chunks, we can manage nature for different ends—for historical restoration, for species preservation, for self-willed wildness, for ecosystem services, for good and fiber and fish and flame trees and frogs” (245). I’ve agreed with Marris on this point throughout the whole book. We need to make the best of what we still have. Sure, the ideas of historical baselines and reintroducing native species sound really great, but they’re basically impossible. All of the goals discussed in this chapter have some level of significance in the world of conservation, and there is nothing wrong with some overlap across the world. Everyone does not have to conform to one goal; all of the various goals can be accomplished in different places where they would be the most appropriate and beneficial. Nonetheless, these goals must be attempted to some extent. All the conservationists of the world will never come to a consensus on what one thing is best for the environment, so we’ll just have to do what we can because the most important thing in all of this is the bigger picture: saving the natural world that we’ve so brutally destroyed and learning to simultaneously flourish alongside it.

In the final chapter of Marris’s novel, Rambunctious Garden, Marris gives seven new goals in conserving nature. The seven goals she lists are: protect the rights of other species, protect charismatic megafauna, slow the rate of extinctions, protect genetic diversity, define and defend biodiversity, maximize ecosystem services, and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. Of these goals, more are wonderful and potentially useful while one may be problematic.

The goals that positive and could save all types of nature are protect the rights of other species, slow the rate of extinctions, protect genetic diversity, and define and defend biodiversity. These four goals are interrelated in the sense that they aim to protect all types of nature. By trying to achieve only one of these goals, the other three are also benefitting. In other words, by slowing the rate of extinctions, ecologists are also protecting the right of a species to exist, protecting genetic diversity and defending biodiversity having more species would help maintain genetic diversity and defend biodiversity. Although Marris brings up the point that genetic diversity can easily be maintained by having “rows of freezers… containing genetic samples from organisms around the world” since the DNA and genes of various species can be stored and kept this way, the difference between only having frozen samples and having living species is immense (162). If given the choice, scientists and people would much rather to have a species existing in the world naturally than have only a few dead frozen ones. In this sense, protecting genetic diversity would still help out the other three goals and benefit nature in general.

Marris voices some possible problems with having maximize ecosystem services and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature as goals, but they are necessary in motivating and encouraging the general human population to protect nature. Maximizing ecosystem services involves implementing policies such as “financial incentives, taxes and the like” (164). Critics argue that these policies make saving nature seem like a reward since money is the incentive, it may create the idea that having money give one the power to destroy nature. This may be true; however, money is a big enough reason for many people to comply with such policies, especially with the current economic situation where money is tight. At first, the real reason behind saving nature may be for economic gain, perhaps after seeing the results and benefits people will change their minds. Similarly, though protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature may seem superficial, it is an important motivating factor for most people. If people are able to create a positive spiritual and aesthetic image of nature, then they are more likely to want to protect nature. Both are important in encouraging the general population to save nature.

The only goal that is slightly troublesome is protect charistmatic megafauna. Marris makes the argument that this is helps create sympathy in people to protect nature and that these charismatic megafauna play key roles in ecosystems. While these reasons may be true, protecting only one species may actually cause an imbalance in the ecosystem and lead to destruction rather than conservation. Marris’s example of how the elephant population grew so immense in one sanctuary actually led changing the landscape and ecosystem from overgrazing. This goal is not a bad one, but must be used with caution.

Marris’s seven goals in conserving nature are generally reasonable and practical, although with many things, having goals is simpler than actually achieving them. Hopefully positive changes can be made to effectively attain these goals and protect nature.

In the closing chapter of the book, Marris summarizes the seven goals that ecologists need to try to achieve in their conservation efforts. Because “no single goal will work in all situations” (Marris 154), the challenge of choosing which goal or goals to accomplish, conservation is not completely universal unless all ecosystem managers agree on common goals. Still, these goals will still help modernize conservation efforts, and finally move away from the “pristine wilderness” notion (Marris 153).

The first of Marris’ seven goals is to protect the rights of other species. Deep ecologists, ecologists who do not “look after the Earth as an extension of looking after people” (Marris 154), claim that “all living things have intrinsic value and deserve to be protected” (Marris 154).  Thus, ecologists must determine not only how to protect species, but also in the case of a predator and a prey, which species to save

The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. Aside from the general admiration of these large creatures because of their appearance, megafauna are also useful as “keystone species – species that have a greater effect on how an ecosystem works and what it looks like” (Marris 156). However, this goal raises potential controversy as people could argue for or against saving one particular species over many others.

The third goal is to slow the extinction rate and allocating resources to save endangered species. The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity, which is also focused on saving certain subspecies in order to keep as many species alive as possible.

The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity, which is to preserve the diverse makeup of an ecosystem based on what species live there. The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services to get as much functionality for humanity out of the ecosystem.  The final goal that Marris is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, in other words, to protect “the way nature looks, smells, and sounds” (167).  Nature can not only look nice, but can also have cultural value than can and should be preserved.

Marris closes by stating that there is no single, universal goal that should be worked towards. I think that the most important goal is to protect the rights of other species. A significant part of the reason why the Earth’s ecosystems are in the poor condition they are in now is because of human interference and human activity, which stemmed from personal human self-supporting goals. I think that the first goals encompasses all the other goals. If humans take a more significant stand towards conservation, they will think about other species aside from just themselves there. Finding a successful policy to solve the general protection goal will create a trickle-down effect to solve issues such as not protecting the megafauna. Shifting the focus from a human-centric driving force to an ecosystem friendly goal will help guide the decisions ecologists make towards handling ecosystems and hopefully preserve them for years to come.

In Marris’ last chapter, she lists a series of goals that people consider for conservation as alternatives to the pristine wilderness ideal. Since people are not focused on a single goal, the number of options for the conserved land have increased. The increased number of goals force people to decide what is more important or what is more feasible because it is impossible to promote all goals at the same time. Marris lists seven goals: to protect other species rights, to protect charismatic megafauna, slow extinctions, protect genetic diversity, defend biodiversity, maximize ecosystem services, and to protect the aesthetic experience of nature. There are several goals that could conflict with each other such as maximizing ecosystem services and protecting aesthetic experiences of nature.

Most of these goals are self explanatory and each individual goal addresses a specific issue that different conservationists like to focus on. The main problem with conservation was that it was trying to achieve all of these goals by focusing on achieving the baseline or a pristine wilderness. The incompatibility or infeasibility between multiple goals stem from economic problems like funding and conflicts between human values of the land and the ecosystems within.

When examining these goals, it is safe to say that each of them have their own merits. Of the seven goals Marris writes about, I feel like only a few are actually a plausible goal. Due to human’s selfish nature and needs, protecting species rights seems to be a difficult task. Protecting megafauna, genetic diversity and slowing extinctions are up to how we deal with the animals and how we modify their ecosystems. Protecting biodiversity seems like an unrealistic goal due to the scope of biodiversity. Of most of the goals I believe that maximizing ecosystem services are actually the most achievable. Marris does mention that ecosystem services promoters are commonly thought to follow the money (she thinks differently) and I agree with this general notion. Due to our selfish nature, we support more projects that are beneficial to us, so I think that this goal/tool is actually the most useful.

For the last goal of protecting aesthetic experiences of nature, Marris seems to support it more if our perceptions of actual aesthetic nature is widened. I think that this goal will be achieved the most because humans want to save this aesthetic value. I do not think that we can actually shift our perceptions of spiritual and pristine nature as humans continue to move into urban areas. The vast differences between a concrete jungle and a real jungle only emphasizes our fascination with pristine nature.

I think that Marris’ concept of a rambunctious garden is an admirable one that can work depending on where the conservation occurs and what goals are being accomplished. I do not believe that some ideas like conservation everywhere would be successful, but I do believe that if humans have an active hand on conservation, we can revert some of our negative impacts and reap some benefits.

Marris talks about more practical approaches to saving nature. She listed seven goals that we should take to help protect this world. First goal is to protect the rights other other species. All the species on this planet needs to coexist. Therefore, we have to learn how to live with each other without disturbing each other’s livelihood. Even though it is important for species to live together, species do become extinct if they aren’t meant to be.

Her second goal is to protect a species of animals that are called charisma megafauna. These animals are ones who are liked more by humans. Therefore, humans tend to care for these animals much more than they do for others.

The third goal is to decrease the rate of extinction. Certain species die off extremely fast and people should put in the effort to slow it down. Such goals are hard to achieve when humans don’t have complete control over what is causing them to die.

Marris’ fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. Greater diversity in species will greatly help the ecosystem as a whole. Having more types of species is a good thing in general.

The fifth is to protect biodiversity. This goal can easily be the hardest to accomplish. Like the fourth goal, it is important for society to keep species different.

Number six is to have better ecosystem services. Many of these services are taken for granted. Marris’ idea is to make it better so that humans realize how important these resources are to us.

The last goal is about how people should embrace nature. In a way, humans are pulled toward nature. Every human enjoys the majestic sights that appear across the world. Humans are naturally inclined to preserve these locations.

These goals are what Marris believes is the best idea for conserving nature. Even though it sounds nice on paper, a lot of these goals require money and effort. Sometimes, humans are selfish and worry about themselves rather than trying to preserve the ecosystem they live in. Even though these goals are more realistic, I believe that humans will never be able to preserve nature the way it is. Like humans, nature constantly changes and adapts to the environment. Why bother forcing it to change one way when it will on its own? Many people want to protect these animals and locations. Maybe these locations were not meant to be filled with this type of plant or animal. I believe that humans are taking this “conserving nature” idea too seriously. If nature does end up disappearing, humans will suffer the consequences for what they’ve done.

In chapter 10 of the book Rambunctious Garden, Marris generates seven goals that scientists can use to approach conservation. These goals are not about getting the place back to the way they were, instead they are more realistic objectives that conservationists should consider.  Goal one focuses on protecting the rights of other species, I agree with Aldo Leopold’s idea that “when we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect (Marris 246)”. The concept that human and nature belong to each other; therefore human must respect and love every species. Goal two emphasizes on protecting charismatic megafauna. Conservationists believe that those megafauna are keystone species, which can cause a great impact on the ecosystem that they live in. However, protecting megafauna species is a very controversial issue; because some conservationists believe that these megafauna can be extremely hard to control, and will destroy the whole environment. In Goal three, Marris talks about slowing the rate of extinctions. This is the goal for many conservationists, but it is very difficult to achieve.  Marris talks about Possingham’s concept that every species should be equally important. But when the money and resources were limited not every species are going to be saved. As Marris puts it, “narrowly focusing on stopping extinctions, in other words, saves species but not necessarily ecosystems (Marris 229).” Goal four encourages protecting genetic diversity. It is important to preserve genetic diversity, because it “preserves the raw source of the diversity of life (Marris, 230).” Ecosystem with more genetic variants will most likely to adapt into the fast changing environments. Goal five talks about defining and defending biodiversity.  Biodiversity, also called complexity, includes all the species, genes and ecosystems that existed. It is the idea that species should be exist together, and “evolution has produced a beautiful web of interrelations, inscrutable in its complexity and inherently valuable (Marris 232).” I agree with Marris that biodiversity may be the most difficult goal to achieve because it includes so much of the nature. Goal six is related to maximizing ecosystem services, which is a more economic approach to conservation. Even though this approach sounds unethical, I actually think this is a good one. According to Marris, “taking an ecosystem services approach can reveal the common interests shared by nature lovers and business people. Everybody wins (Marris 239).” Conservation needs a lot of effort, time and money; therefore I think it will be useful to make a connection with business people. The last goal emphasizes protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. According to Marris, “aesthetic and spiritual values are not limited to native or pristine-seeming places (Marris 241).” There are many man-made places that we may have spiritual connections with it; and all of these places are worth protecting. In the end of the book, Marris advocates that everyone should take a responsibility to manage the nature that we live in because we are the ones who changed them.

Emma Marris talks about a number of goals in the last chapter of her novel, Rambunctious Garden. In chapter 10, “A Menu of New Goals”, she lists seven aspirations for our ecological future. These include protecting the rights of other species, protecting charismatic megafauna, slowing the rate of extinctions, protecting genetic diversity, defining and defending biodiversity, maximizing ecosystem services, and protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature, respectively. They are feasible goals that are possible to achieve.

She talks about how “humans must reduce their current intensive impact on the Earth” that satisfies “frivolous desires of their consumer society” for the first goal (Marris 155). It is simply the right and moral thing for us to do. Humans owe a responsibility to the natural world. Nature should not be exploited. In fact, nature should have rights just as humans do. Just because we can think and communicate does not mean we have the right to destroy or alter nature.

In the second goal, Marris explains that protecting megafauna does not mean we neglect smaller species. Just because we favor “big mammals with big eyes”, species like lichen and parasites are often overlooked (156). We have to take all the species of an ecosystem into account. Doing so would also help the rate of extinctions, which she talks about for the next goal. All species are “equally valuable” (158). Sometimes, preserving a particular species may cause harm. An example would be populating amphibians in zoos. It takes time to breed populations. How long would it take before ecological niches change and replace these species?

In the fourth goal, protecting genetic diversity is spelled out. Humans do not know for sure the exact distinctions between different animals. For example, studies have shown that “some brown bears are more closely related to polar bears than they are to some other brown bears” (160). Our current concept of species is not accurate and should not be used to determine which groups of organisms should be protected. In the same category, the fifth goal is protecting biodiversity –  a high value. Although it is a difficult conservation goal, it embraces the whole planet and everything natural about it.

“Bits of land and the species therein are valuable to the extent that they help out humanity” (162). For the sixth goal, Marris talks emphasizes how vital ecological resources and services are. Without these services, society would have to spend a fortune. Pollinators help with our harvests. If bees were to go extinct, it would be a huge headache to get flowers pollinated.

For the last goal, she talks about how individuals feel spiritually connected to nature. Humans are attracted to beauty such as the one nature has. These provide “joyful cohabitation” to our future and our planet (170). Therefore, there should be some level of human intervention in nature. Together, beauty of nature can be maximized with the concept of rambunctious gardens. These ecosystems do not harm others. Not only are they aesthetically pleasing, these recreational ecosystems are beneficial to society.

Rambunctious gardening is also a way to manage all these goals. As Marris states, “we’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate. It is our duty to manage it” (171).

To give up preserving nature in its “pristine wilderness,” conservationists must come up with  a variety of alternative goals. Making these goals is not as simple as it may seem. The goals must be applied to the real world with budgets and other limitations. Also, unlike conserving nature in its originality, which can applied to all situations, not one single goal can be used for all preservation of nature.

Some people believe that people have a moral obligation to treat land, animals, plants, and water the same we would want to be treated. These people, deep ecologists, claim that if humans fail to protect the environment, then humans are taking away the environment’s “rights.” For example, animals have rights to live as they naturally would, like cats roaming around freely. However, this conflicts with conservation because some animals live by killing/hunting other species, which may be heading to extinction. To prevent animals from causing other species to go extinct, conservationists will have to step in and diminish the predator’s population. This conflict makes it difficult to have biodiversity and to protect animal’s rights. Besides animal’s rights, there are also the rights of nonliving aspects of nature, which cannot be based off animal’s rights, is another difficulty in conservation. I believe that the goal of “protecting the rights of other species” should not be concentrated on too much unless it involves a species going extinct–goal 3. All animals should be able to behave as they would in the wilderness, and humans should only observe and make sure no species will go extinct. I believe that eventually the species food chain will balance out.

Also, this goes hand in hand with goal 2-protecting the megafauna-because we do not want larger species like pandas and elephants to go extinct, but we do want them to be able to live in their natural habitats. To ensure that megafauna do not go extinct, conservationists need to work with others instead of trying to push their ideals onto others. For example, the illegal trade of ivory diminishes the population of elephants in Africa. It was first illegal to cull elephants, but then Africa soon made it legal, which sparked a fiery debate. By focusing on protecting the elephants from illegal ivory trade, other species that would be affected by the elephants disappearance are forgotten. Conservationists should work goal two and goal three together, because protecting the megafauna will also help protect other species connected to it, as well as prevent extinction of the megafauna and other species.

Protecting all species will ensure genetic diversity and biodiversity, goals 4 and 5. Conservationists want to have as much diversity in the environment as possible. However, the complexity of diversity makes it difficult to conserve all. Some species are not as well liked as others, so its disappearance may go unnoticed; however, it is still a part of nature and contributes to diversity. Biodiversity involves so many aspects of nature that to protect it all seems impossible. However, I believe that biodiversity will be protected as long as we protect nature from being completely destroyed. From the looks of it, biodiversity would be the main goal of conservation with all other goals stated beneath it. This is due to the vague term of biodiversity that involves species and landscape.

To end her book “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris hits us with the reality that “there is no one best goal.  Even if we agree to pursue all sorts of goals, we still have complex compromises to make between ideologies in contested places and between local and global interests” (170).  “Throw the real limitations of budgets, politics, and time in there and the choices become ever more brutal” (153).

With the number of approaches Marris puts forth in her book, the ending sadly reminds us that there is no way to save every species, plant, and landscape that still exists at this point in time.  “We can’t have both elephants and biodiversity…we must choose between ensuring a frog species’s ultimate survival or leaving it in its native ecosystem…and an experiment in which whole ecosystems are pitted against one another in a battle royale” (153-154).

With the existence of many cultures, peoples, and landscapes on earth there has to be compromise by both sides to reach a common goal.  With compromise comes sacrifice and to move forward we have to realize that if we are serious about saving the environment we need to save what is deemed the highest priority before we lose it by delaying action.  Finding out what is important is going to be incredibly difficult though because we’ll need numerous groups of people to agree upon a solid choice, which is always difficult.

The next thing to consider is how do we approach the environment and our limitations of “budgets, politics, and time” (153).  If our budget doesn’t allow for a specific action, it could inevitably lower the priority of something because what’s the purpose of placing something on a high priority if our limitations make it implausible.  This affect could eventually cause us to diminish the value of certain natures and instead of attributing aesthetic and spiritual values, we might only be concerned with the intrinsic values of the land.

The ultimate issue is the future.  There is never a 100% that we will know what our efforts will sow.  We don’t know for sure if one ecosystem should be chosen over another, but in the importance of acting in time, we must do so anyways.  Knowing this we must understand the reasoning behind certain approaches and stick by it.  We can’t make a decision and decide to return the ecosystem to a state before our intervention.  That would be moving backwards and eliminate our forward progress, wasting time, money, and resources.  To save the environment we must all reach a common goal and set our minds to purpose and achieve it.

In Chapter 10, A Menu of New Goals, Marris talks about her list of goals for our world. A list that is combined with all the realistic circumstances that are packaged together for our present to nature. In  goal one “Protect the Rights of Other Species”, she discusses land ethic, the recognition of the inherent value of an ecosystem extending to soil, water, plants, and animals. We should love and respect the land that we live on. Deep ecology builds on this notion by describing how deep of a love people have for this earth. We have moral obligations to the planet and we should adjust our lifestyles to save it. Just because we are humans does not mean we own everything. Her second goal is titled “Protect Charismatic Megafauna.” In it, she states the power of charismatic megafauna or large animals that humans like and do not want to go extinct, such as whales, tigers, pandas, or, as she puts it, animals with large eyes. Many of these species are also keystone species. These species have an impact on how an ecosystem looks, works, and whether it can create an umbrella conservation for surrounding species. However, problems erupt when deciding between whether to save these animals or the environment that they live in. Goal number three is called “Slow the Rate of Extinctions.” Marris goes into species classification where some scientists believe that every species, form fly to jaguar should be equally treated. Possingham, a mathmatical ecologist, shares some realistic views. If saving a land area requires an investment no one is willing to make, the land should not be saved at all. Saving species does not mean that you are saving their environment. Her fourth goal is to “Protect Genetic Diversity.” Here, she discusses the possibilities that some species are not in fact species. Marris believes that despite the importance of very diverse genetic makeups, it turns out pointless if the body holding the genes is disregarded. In her fifth goal, “Define and Defend Biodiversity”, Marris redirects the unmotivated reader from genes to biodiversity, or simply complexity. She reveals that it may be the most problematic conservation goal. Despite it being the main factor most people value from nature, it tries to hard to cover too much. Goal six, “Maximize Ecosystem Services” starts off by stating how much we do not realize the help that the planet’s resources provide. We only have a finite amount left and conservationists are trying to get the government’s attention. Species have an existence value and that is why lands such as Alaska are so highly favored by the masses. It seems more like a way to get people to be interested in saving nature as apposed to their true natural value. In her seventh goal, “Protect the Spiritual and Aesthetic Experience of Nature”, the existence of nature also creates close ties to us humans through family and culture. It is our duty to promote the lands where these natural spiritual bonds live. Marris’s solution is the rambunctious garden. Finally, Marris goes into her subchapter, “Juggling Goals.” She tells us that there is no best goal. But it is our duty, despite the cost or effort, to do our best to preserve nature in creating a rambunctious garden.

At the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Marris displays new set of goals for conservation.  She lays out several goals that must be work out together in order to fulfill the conservation that can save the nature, species, and humans. The fist goals that Marris displays are protecting the rights of other species. Humans and other species must exist on earth together and all species including humans have intrinsic values. Since some humans downgrades value of other species, it is hard to find a point that many agrees to a certain value of species. She argues that every species are important and valuable. However, in contradiction, Marris says that in order to protect biodiversity and for natural balance, there must be intentional killing of other species. It is inevitable to be thinking less of the species that are intentionally killed.

The second goal is to protect charisma megafauna. The first goal talked about how humans think less of certain species. At the same time, humans become more sensitive and protective with “big mammals with big eyes” (156). The megafauna of current ecosystems features more likeable characteristics and humans prioritize the value of the megafauna over other important small species.

The third goal is to slow down the rate of extinction of species. There was times that species extinct in a rapid rate and sometimes the fast extinction was cause by humans. This goal is important, however, hard to achieve at the same time. Currently, it difficult to measure the magnitude of effects that decreasing the rate of extinction of species will bring. More population of species can be a benefit or damage to the ecosystem.

The fourth goal is to protect the genetic diversity. Conserving the genetic diversity will result in more biodiversity that is beneficial to the ecosystem. Having more diversity in the nature is more favorable than have homogeny nature system.

The fifth goal is to define and defend the biodiversity. It is general theories that scope the species and the ecosystem. Marris continued as she say through the evolution with introduction of new species and extinction of species, the nature created a beautiful web that many species, genes, and environments interrelate.

The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. This idea sounds unethical since species that are not noticed by humans receive a lower value. Also, species that provides resources to humans have less value since they must be killed frequently for the resources.

The seventh and the last goal are protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. This goal suggests that people lean more towards the welfare of nature that people have memories in. Therefore, nature tour sites are more concerned by the humans when it comes to conservation.

These goals that suggest by Marris shows the future of ecosystems and also show how modern ecosystem became a problem. It seems like Marris tells the readers that humans are hypocritical when it comes to protecting and conserving species and ecosystems. People do play favorites regarding this important issue. I think it is inevitable for humans to favor, but I thin it is important for humans to acknowledge the every species in the ecosystems have high intrinsic value and play key roles in the natural balance.

The final chapter of Rambunctious Garden lists some alternative goals for conservation. These goals do not have any association with the “pristine wilderness” idea, but they are alternate directions we can take to conserve nature. Of course, “no single goal will work in all situations” (154). Some goals are better suited for certain environments and other goals may be better suited for certain species. In the end, many of Marris’s alternative goals do sound reasonable for the future.

The first goal is protecting the rights of other species. This goal essentially gives all species and ecosystems similar human rights and privileges. However, this goal has a large amount of bias. After all, this goal can leave out many “plants, mountains, and landscapes” (155). While mountains and landscapes are nonliving, they are still a part of the ecosystem. It would also be rather difficult to give “rights” to mountains.

The second goal is protecting charismatic megafauna. Protecting charismatic megafauna sounds like a reasonable goal because the megafaunas are often the species that become extinct the fastest. In addition, protecting the megafaunas keep the ecosystem stable since many are keystone species or “species that have a great effect on how an ecosystem works and what it looks like” (156). Lastly, megafaunas, like dophins and elephants, have popular human support, which means there will be many people agreeing on this goal.

The third goal is slowing the rate of extinctions. Slowing the rate of extinctions involves treating every species as equally valuable. This view on the species makes it more cost-effective to stop extinction since there is a guarantee that a species will be save. Unfortunately, there will probably be a great amount of opposition for the idea since people do have favorite species. If every species is equally weighted, this “might mean that if the budget is tight, your favorite species may not get saved” (159).

The fourth goal is protecting genetic diversity. Protecting genetic diversity will enhance the survival of a particular species since there will be more genetic variants that could to lead to “adaptations that help them thrive in a warmer world” (161). Similarly, the fifth goal focuses on defending biodiversity. This goal focuses on protecting the complexity of the ecosystem including the small interactions between species. However, this goal may be difficult to get people to agree on since the world’s “real complexity is hidden and not highly valued by our society” (163).

The sixth goal is maximizing ecosystem services. Many people believe that places with higher biodiversity have better ecosystem services, but there is insufficient evidence. Marris suggest that this goal can be a way to achieve other types of goals. Lastly, the seventh goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. This goal suggests that everyone enjoy nature in some way. Since this value is in many people, Marris suggests that we should also protect it.

Marris definitely have many reasonable goals for conserving nature. Many of these goals do work, but it may be difficult to get everyone to agree on the same goal. Marris also points out that we should be more open about the cost of conserving nature. In summary, she states “be honest about goals and costs, keep land from mindless development, and try just about everything” (170). In the end, it is up to humans to make these decisions.

The final chapter of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden wraps up the overall goals she wishes to achieve with this writing. She outlines some ambitions she thinks ecologists should have in their work. I think this was a good way to end the book because it wrapped up pretty much all of the points she made throughout the writing in a way that leaves the reader with a lasting impression. One goal I really would like to see accomplished is to protect the rights of other species before focusing on the benefits for humans. This comes into play when developing land or affecting a habitat in anyway. For the most part, we as a species put ourselves first when developing land. Marris brings up the point that “deep ecology” is conducting ecological operations while giving special care to all species even though they are not human. I believe that this is the ideology to go into studies with because although it will lessen the amount that humans can profit from the environment, it will provide some protection and relief for other species. This in turn could help to achieve some of the other goals that Marris lays out.

Another goal that I found to be appropriate was to protect charismatic mega fauna. The general consensus among the average citizen is that these creatures should be protected for their beauty and aesthetic qualities on the environments they live in. People travel far and wide to see these majestic beasts such as rhinos and elephants. While they do provide a certain aesthetic pleasure to humans, these animals play a key role in their ecosystems. Being such large animals with large grazing areas, they affect enormous pieces of land. By protecting these creatures, these large parcels of land are kept in check. If elephants were to suddenly vanish from the African plain, the effects on species living there would be unpredictable and most likely not positive. Protecting mega fauna is also an economical way to protect other species as well. It would cost a lot of money to implement policies and techniques to protect all the species of an ecosystem. It costs a lot less to implement policies to protect one species, such as the elephant, whose protection could positively help the species around it. We would then be killing two birds with one stone, or more literally, saving multiple species with lower costs.

Marris closes her book with the concept of a “rambunctious garden.” She wants people to realize that throughout history we have altered nature and thus should not just abandon it now that we have taken so much from it. We need to manage it and “garden” it. Although she brought up a lot of differing theories and techniques of this “gardening” throughout the book such as novel ecosystems and historical restoration, she ultimately views them all as decent enough attempts at managing nature and keeping it lively for years to come. I really did enjoy this book and will definitely be coming away from it with a greater appreciation for every aspect of nature I encounter in my day to day life.

In chapter 8 of the “Rambunctious Garden,” Emma Marris poses a discussion about Designer Ecosystems, which are ecosystems that are created and designed in order to reach a certain goal and purpose. They can recreate the ecosystem in a way that serves a certain purpose or goal that they want to accomplish. This differs from the method she mentioned in a previous chapter in which ecosystems are constructed in order to mimic how the environment looked in the past. Instead of trying to create an artificial, historic ecosystem conservationists attempt to create ecosystems that have a functional purpose and usefulness. For instance, Marris mentions that some of the goals that can be accomplished include “nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species” (125). Instead of focusing on the past and on how ecosystems used to look like traditional conservationists, ecologists who use this method turn their attention to creating a more successful and sustainable future. Unlike modern efforts that attempt to recreate nature as it looked before human interference and development, these ecologists understand that nature is not as it was thousands of years ago and came to terms with the fact that ecosystems have changed. They know that it is not possible to restore nature to pristine and historic conditions and I believe that once we fully understand that we will be able to turn our backs on the past and look to the future. Many species have changed and it is important that we focus on ways that will allow these species to thrive and be able to sustain themselves in their new environments.
In chapter 9 titled “Conservation Everywhere” Marris focuses her attention on promoting the idea that through the methods that she mentions throughout her book nature has the ability to exist everywhere. She attempts to instill in her reader that fact that we must make “the most out of every scrap of land and water.” She points out that we must strive to put conservation in the forefront of our minds and try to preserve nature everywhere, whether it is in industrial areas or our own backyards. One main point that she mentions is that nature and industry can coexist and that we should make almost every place the breeding grounds for nature. No matter where we are we should strive to try to promote the existence of nature and the emergence of new ecosystems. This relates to what she discusses in her beginning chapters, when she introduces the concept of a “Rambunctious Garden.” Like she says in her earlier chapter, nature is all around us and whether it is in a park, our backyards or right next to a fast food joint we must try to strive for the conservation of ecosystems and the coexistence of nature and man. I believe that this idea would provide for a greater human appreciation for nature and their surroundings and although it wouldn’t solve the entire problem, it can act as a guiding step to create a world where man and nature can coexist.

In chapters 8 and 9 of “Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World,” Emma Marris discusses the ideas of designer ecosystems and conservation everywhere. According to Marris, a designer ecosystem is one that has been planned by humans. Conservation everywhere is about trying to bring nature to as many places as possible.

Marris begins her chapter about designer ecosystems by once again pointing out a flaw with conservation baselines. She explains that the stream ecosystems that many humans today believe to be natural were in fact a result of Europeans settlers. They built dams that were then breached when steam power displaced hydropower. This created new streams that were vastly different from those that existed naturally before they were dammed. Marris uses this example to explain that, because humans have been interacting with and altering nature for so long, it is very difficult to know what the natural state of a region truly is. Therefore, it is difficult for conservationists to know what kind of state they should be restoring the area to.

Marris then introduces the idea of designer ecosystems. She does this with a quote from a stream restoration expert named Margaret Palmer, who states that “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 else is the same as it was presettlement.” The idea is that, rather than trying to reverse the changes humans have made to an ecosystem, we should design a new ecosystem by solving the problems caused by those changes made by humans.

The idea of designer ecosystems is flawed but it is a step in the right direction. As Marris points out, ecosystems are too complex for people to understand them well enough to predict the results of a designed ecosystem. This means that there is much more for people to learn about nature before we can design an ecosystem from scratch and it also means that even smaller-scale attempts to make positive changes to ecosystems today may not always be successful.

Conservation everywhere deals with the idea that Marris has been stressing throughout the book, which is the idea that nature can exist anywhere. In this chapter, Marris first uses locations in Seattle, Washington as examples. She describes an old Boeing plant that will be torn down and cleaned up along with the river it is adjacent to. She states that, while this specific location will be cleaned up, others will stay the same. This would allow nature to be added to the region without disrupting the economy. Throughout the chapter, Marris describes other examples of human developments and nature coexisting. Some National Parks in Western Europe are even run “a bit like farms.” This allows for humans to farm but with less of an impact on the environment than farms run with the goal of efficiency would have. Marris also gives points out that there are many places where people could just let nature grow rather than working so hard to control it. She explains that plant populations are able to exist as a metapopulation even if they are separate due to pollinators. Therefore, even in a place like New York City, if we allow plants to grow naturally small locations, pollinators will allow the plants to form a metapopulation.

I support the ideas Marris suggests regarding conservation everywhere and the rambunctious garden. I think we should continue to devote more research and resources to more local, smaller-scale natural spaces.

The word “invasive” in invasive species already suggests that the certain species are unnecessary and intrusive. It has been a long-held belief of ecologists and conservationists that invasive species are generally considered harmful and detrimental to the ecosystems they are introduced to. They usually cause other species to become extinct because they are either new competition for food or they prey on that specie. Such cases of species harming their respective ecosystems are the zebra muscles, flightless wren, and the Asian tiger mosquitos. Nevertheless, Marris suggests that humans not get involved or interfere with invasive species. She states, “the vast majority are not. Science is finding that some are quite well behaved and innocuous, or even helpful.” Numerous times, invasive species have little effect or even positive effects to the ecosystems. In many cases they allow for more biodiversity and they end up furthering the ecosystem. When an invasive specie of tree was brought to Rodrigues Island, it ended up bring back three species of animals that were soon to be extinct. Eventually, environmentalists ended up removing the species because it was invasive and was not part of the original baseline. This resulted in a ton of money and time being spent on cutting down all the trees when the effort could have been put into removing an invasive species that actually had a negative effect on the ecosystem it was introduced to.

In chapter 7, Marris talks about novel ecosystems and the “brave few” who embrace and participate in them. Ecologists have been using the term novel ecosystems to mean, “the more dramatically altered systems.” By that they mean ecosystems that have had their specie composition dramatically changed over the past few centuries. For example, a forest that has remained unchanged for the past thousand years would not qualify even though some non-native species may have been introduced. I am generally not so supportive of this idea because as far as I know, little evidence has shown that the majority of invasive species have had positive effects on ecosystems. Nevertheless, one of the aspects of novel ecosystems seems to flourish in my head, the fact that novel ecosystems sometimes exist even though there has never been any human contact. This shows that somehow species have migrated and for some time they have ben able to live in harmony without disrupting the ecosystem.

In chapter eight and nine of Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces the idea that restoration initiatives that attempt to return ecosystems to a particular baseline are not as factual as ecologists once thought. Take the restoration of streams, for example. Pre-European arrival in the Piedmont region of eastern United States, streams were actually more like swamps. A revolution in restorative ecology has spurred the theory that venturing to restore streams is actually an attempt to restore an artificial state.

If restorative efforts choose baselines arbitrarily, can we really call it historical restoration? What has resulted is a completely new theory. Marris states that in one way or another, all restoration projects are planned, thus labeling them designer ecosystems. Taking this idea one step further, Marris introduces a more radical kind of designer ecosystem: “…not emulating any base line at all but building de novo to achieve a particular goal” (126). Some ecologists argue that we should be more concerned with constructing ecosystems that are the most advantageous rather than trying to restore ecosystems that may not have as many benefits, thus improving conservational value. Take ecologist Rene Dubos, for example. He believed in human-created landscapes designed to support humans and other species. Historian Roderick Nash, believes in the “garden scenario” in which humans have total control over nature, aiming to produce benefits.

In reality, practicing such theories is extremely tricky because there are far too many variables involved. Our ecosystems are remarkably complex and do not go through biotic changes or abiotic changes exclusively. If this were the case, restoring hybrid ecosystems would be a bit simpler. In truth, however, both biotic and abiotic changes usually occur simultaneously, making complete restoration a fleeting objective. Humans do not yet know enough to patch together different kinds of land to form novel ecosystems. Instead, humans have been “rambunctious gardeners” for centuries, mildly altering and designing our own ecosystems. National and neighborhood parks, home gardens, nature reserves and the like all seem to embody designer ecosystems.

As Marris alludes, restoration ecologists are similar to doctors, looking to heal wounded nature by returning it to a natural state. Ecosystem designers, on the other hand, are beginning to see possibilities in “designing, engineering and cooking up something new” (126). Essentially, historical ecological restoration has become moot by the belief that environments are ever-changing and ecosystems are highly dynamic. Marris seems to believe that if we are able to overcome the gestalt switch in our minds, then we may be able to one day witness the coexistence of humans and nature, just as can been seen in Alberta’s Banff National Park. The “graceful wildlife overpasses and underpasses” that serve as roadways to zooming cars are also utilized by moose, lynx and other animals that migrate and disperse (138). If we can effectively let go of our need to always work back to a baseline, “history becomes…a guide instead of a straightjacket” (131).

In these two chapters of Marris discuses about designer ecosystems and conservation in areas we may have never thought about. In the beginning of the chapter, Marris talks about how our concept is a running atypical stream. It is actually not natural. It was actually created by the Europeans when they dammed areas that changed swamp areas to areas with the rivers we are trying to return to. 
 
Based on this point, Marris argues going back to a past point not worth it in this case, as in others, since the rivers way of flowing was changed by man and is a bad goal if conservationists want to go back to before humans impacted nature. I agree with Marris that this isn’t worth the money it takes to restore an area is the goal is pristine nature since the baseline may not have been pristine to begin with.
 
A new approach to restoring areas is to engineer or design for specific goals such as nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or more small number of named species. Some goals may interfere with others so choose wisely. Restoration ecologists design to a certain extent since the ecosystem 100 years ago cant be exactly recreated, so human technology or proxy species may be used to obtain a similar ecosystem.
 
People may assume that before humans arrived, ecosystems were most efficient in the natural cycles. However, it has been shown that designer ecosystems can be more efficient than a recreation of a ecosystem. It is true that humans recreate ecosystems by design to a certain extent. However, how should we change the ecosystems? Introducing proxy species feel right to me if it helps an ecosystem return to its former functions. Moving animals around to prevent their endangerment feel right to me, too. To improve an ecosystem for our benefit should be only allowed if it also benefit the species living there.

The author’s point in chapter feels very familiar to me. She talks about ways of adding nature to lands not normally thought of for conservation such as planting native plants to cornfields or placing food for butterflies in city parks. Conservationists in Europehad have less pristine land to work with and and they try to maximize nature whenever possible, such as using agri environment schemes. 
 
One idea that I really advocate in this book is to add nature wherever possible in the city. I always believed in that viewpoint that we should add nature wherever possible in the city including workplaces and gardens. Any worker can make a work area a conservation space. I really like the idea of having a garden on the rooftop since instead of seeing concrete on roofs, we see lots of plants which can be appealing given how we don’t see as many plants as we normally would in the city except for parks.

She lists steps and results from turning a garden or an area to a native plant garden: plant local flora, local animals will be attracted since they are already attracted to those plants which are adapted to the climate already. I am not sure to what extent people will start to love nature as she said but this idea of gardens sound much more plausible and digestible than her other ideas.

In Ch 8 and 9 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the idea of designer ecosystems. Different from restoration and searching for pristine wilderness, creating designer ecosystems is an approach that aims to achieve a particular goal for an ecosystem/population by using a combination of different techniques such as rewilding and assisted migration. Marris also delves further into conservation efforts and discusses how it can be implemented anywhere in any conditions by using designer ecosystems and other various techniques.

In my opinion the idea of designer ecosystems– to restore a lost function or finding an equivalent cost efficient solution seems both practical and feasible. The concept mirrors the scientific process, there is a set goal, limiting parameters, etc. that an ecologist has to work around to engineer a system which achieves that goal. The approach does not necessarily look for baselines and can be implemented almost anywhere. As a result, land, funding and resources are not wasted, while the goal is still being fulfilled. For example, instead of creating a new habitat or eliminating invasive predators, ecologists drill additional nesting holes in Galapagos to decrease the rate of mortality among penguin eggs. The solution is cost efficient and accomplishes the goal. Designer ecosystems do accomplish the ecological goals of a particular landscape, however it is often criticized as being unnatural and not necessarily wilderness. Some may even consider it to be a desperate effort to limit the human impact on nature, which will ultimately eliminate anything that is truly wild and untamed. Nevertheless, in my opinion it is both feasible and cost efficient. It accomplishes the desired goal and since the cost of failure is low, multiple hypotheses can be applied and tested.

Ch 9, as suggested by the title, “conservation everywhere” primarily deals with the idea of  creating everyday places into rambunctious gardens, and using a mix of various unorthodox conservation techniques and implementing it everywhere around us. Whether it maybe be rivers, farms, backyards and rooftops. The idea is to gradually add as much natural areas to increase the species diversity and prevent extinction.

I agree with the ideas presented by Marris in both the chapters, and believe that nature is not a place far away, but all around us. Creating rambunctious gardens can only help and is far more practical than restoring baselines.

In chapter 8 of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Marris dips into the topic of designer ecosystems. While restoration projects are too small “to capture complex processes” that have been lost, an ecosystem that is designed with a specific purpose and goals—“nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of…species”—and exists simply to be functional (Marris, 125). While restoration ecologists cannot produce carbon copies of historic ecosystems, they use many artificial “shortcuts” to achieve a functional landscape they desire (125). From baskets to wires to chains, ecologists use such materials to create streams and “nooks and crannies for animals” (126).

Ecologists “admit that no one has ever been able to comprehend all the dynamics of any real ecosystem” (130). Therefore, complex and fully functioning designer ecosystems have yet to be built from absolute scratch with “no resemblance to any historical ecosystem” (130).

In chapter 9, Marris further explores the idea of working with what you already have and whatever works in nature. She discusses the possibility of a “hybrid future”— an ecosystem that is “part habitat, part active industr[y]” (133). Conservational efforts within urban, suburban, and rural societies build upon the idea of increasing nature’s usefulness and functionality. Marris cites Yellowstone as a “crucial part of an expanded model” (136). As protected areas with enforced rules, these environments become “anchors” of “conservation goals” (136).

Newly discussed ideas focus on areas in the industrial landscape that “are not active work sites”—wasted spaces that are “ripe for conservation” (144). Even idle spots such as the strips of land that borders highways are good candidates for ecosystems full of native flora. Hydroseeding (a mixture of various native seeds and water that is sprayed unto land) is being increasingly used on roadsides and highway medians. Marris’ suggestion of “fast-food restaurants and big-box stores” taking upon conservation projects (like hydroseeding self-sustaining plant species) on their idle spaces around their stores and shops is a great idea not only to impact nature on a positively grand scale, but also to get rid of maintenance costs and managing issues (145).

This idea of conservation projects is fantastic because it is a project that can be taken up by practically anyone in society. From community gardens, nature parks, balconies with plant boxes, to private home gardens and rural ranch lands, private citizens do not need to wait for any orders or response from the government. From wooden bird boxes and feeders to planting different species, individuals can easily set up their own conservation goals.

In chapter 8, Marris introduces the idea of designer ecosystems, which are ecosystems built to be functional. The purpose of designer ecosystems is not to restore the ecosystem to a historic baseline. Rather, it is to improve the ecosystem and increase its value by helping it serve a purpose. Designer ecosystems are crafted for “for specific measurable goals [such as] nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species,” (Marris 125) to name a few. Not only are designer ecosystems more practical, they are also easier to achieve. When Marris discussed some ecologists’ efforts to revert ecosystems to baselines, one of the major arguments against the idea was that there are too many variables that scientists cannot account for in the ecological makeup of an ecosystem to accurately recreate and ensure the survival of every species. According to Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland, College Park, our methods of conservation and restoration “will just replace one arbitrary baseline with another – neither of which takes into account the changing nature of the landscape” (Marris 124). Designer ecosystems guide ecologists towards building a better future rather than living in the past.

Marris predicts that ecologists will eventually settle on fusing ecosystem designing with untamed nature. To her, these two viewpoints on environmentalism can produce a world that is “’ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization’” (Marris 131) but still offers “unweeded and untidy” (Marris 131) patches of nature. However, I disagree that having more unmanaged wilderness will effectively balance the designed ecosystems. Ecosystems need to be contained and maintained so that they do not interfere with other ecosystems and disrupt environmental balances. The idea of pure nature seems contradictory to Marris’s definition of a rambunctious garden in the beginning of the book, as it is less of a hybrid of modern conservation techniques and more of a laissez-faire approach highly dependent on natural regulation.

In chapter 9, Marris introduces the idea of integrating conservation and natural species within our society. The concept of creating conservational efforts within our cities, suburbs, and farms seem to be the most feasible and least radical of all the options Marris presents in the book. It builds on the efforts to increase practicality and functionality from nature. Hydroseeding, [for example, where] seed [of native species are] mixed in with water and sprayed directly on roadsides” (Marris 144), creates new habitats for said species, and utilizes land to its fullest extent. Not only does this promote efficient use of land, but also it also connects patches of nature together. By promoting connectivity and “[patching] together different kinds of land to create connected-up nature: parks, public lands of other types, private lands with special legal arrangements in place, state lands, tribal lands, and so on” (Marris 138), humans can also feel more connected to nature by living so close to it. Conserving and restoring native species and ecosystems, promoting human interaction and appreciation of nature, and higher efficient use of land – all of this can be achieved with a network of nature patches. Compared to Marris’s idea of large unmanaged fields of wilderness, blending conservation efforts with human existence seems more likely to succeed. Although it will not be as successful as perhaps devoting an entire garden to a native ecosystem, some native species will be able to survive in their new environments. Humans will also how to better understand interact with nature, and thus preserve it in the long run.

In the eighth chapter of Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, entitled “Designer Ecosystems,” comes an addition to the recurring concept of manmade nature. Yet again, this proposal rivals the standard conservation tactic of restoration to a historical baseline. Instead, designer ecosystems refer to those that are mended to suit their needs. This is more of a functional restoration, for it involves the construction of different aspects in order to perform certain jobs such as the reduction of nitrogen. Although this hasn’t become a particularly accepted or common practice, it seems pretty useful and beneficial. The idea of the historical baseline is slowly fading as conservationists begin to see more and more that the true origins of ecosystems cannot be discovered and that they’d end up changing anyway. If we can do something to repair damage while simultaneously conserving nature, there is no reason why we shouldn’t do so.

Another type of designer ecosystems that Marris mentions is that of entirely human-generated ecosystems. This is really not conservation at all, since nothing is being saved or preserved, but it’s more of an extreme version of the rambunctious garden. It isn’t humans tending to the nature around them but humans actually creating the nature. This might be the future of conservation, but it’s a bit too controlled for me. Nature has always been out of human control, and our efforts to save it are pushing that boundary, but us building it from scratch is just going too far. It’d be like little virtual ecological communities, and the point of nature, as I see it, is that it’s out of our hands and can’t and shouldn’t be manipulated to that extent.

The ninth chapter of Marris’s book, entitled “Conservation Everywhere,” rehashes the aspect of the rambunctious garden that says that nature can exist everywhere. All of her aforementioned conservation methods operate in accordance with her idea to “[make] the most out of every scrap of land and water,” (193) “from industrial rivers like the Duwamish to the roofs of buildings and farmers’ fields” (194). Theoretically, this sounds perfect. Instilling small pieces of nature everywhere possible can’t hurt; it would add some aesthetic value to urban areas while conserving nature at the same time. Yet, even with her example of the successful coexistence of nature and industry on the Duwamish, nature in “the loud, soot-belching landscape of factories, processing plants, energy infrastructure, and transportation” (204) seems remarkably difficult. In any city, these installments of nature would really just be out of place and probably ineffective. Nevertheless, it could be a great initiative if there was a foolproof way of going about it.

Throughout the ninth chapter, Marris appears to believe that everyone wants to coexist with nature in order to conserve it. Based on the history of humankind, I would beg to differ. All we’ve ever done is destroy nature to make more room for us, so it wouldn’t make sense that people are suddenly willing to surround themselves with it just because it’s dying out. In fact, many people are probably more than willing to let it continue on its current path of deterioration, or if not they definitely don’t want it at their doorstep. I personally think that conservation should be a priority and that we should do it however possible, but the hope for ‘conservation everywhere’ won’t even get close to becoming a reality until this becomes a more widespread view.

In chapters 8 and 9, Marris continues to criticize returning ecosystems to the way they existed before human intervention. She reiterates the idea, this time using designer ecosystems and once again, human misperceptions of nature and the goals of conservation, to illustrate the problems with trying to restore environments in this manner. Marris then clearly offers how people should think of conservation. Marris argues that the goal of conservation should be to create environments that are “ecologically sound, aesthetically satisfying, economically rewarding and favorable to the continued growth of civilization” (131). This idea of conservation is reasonable and practical given the amount of irreversible changes humans have already made to nature and its ability to appeal to the many people.

Marris has already attacked a variety of conservation ideas such as rewilding and assisted migration. The latest method of conservation she attacks is designer ecosystems. She begins by destroying the common idea held by ecologists and average people alike of what a stream should look like. The thought of a stream being a “single languidly curving channel with high banks” is actually something that has been created as a result of manmade dams during the Industrial Revolution (123). The archetype for an untouched stream is anything but natural. She goes back to the idea of baselines and where people decide untouched by humans really is. One point that she really nails is the idea that designer ecosystems can be expensive, difficult and unsuccessful. The idea of designing an area to look a certain way may require using humans to maintain it. One example she uses is sinking old ships so coral reefs can live on them. Old ships certainly are not a part of the way the ecosystem naturally was, but they are effective solutions. Some designed ecosystems just fail completely due to amount of changes and alterations in an ecosystem. One example she gives is in Australia where the soil and rainfall patterns have changed, that making it incredibly difficult to repopulate the area with eucalyptus trees that have become locally extinct. In such cases, it is fruitless to try to design an area to its original ecosystem; however, in other instances, designer ecosystems should not completely be thrown aside. Using the example of the sunken ships to promote growth in the coral reef, it does offer a solution that works, despite it not being completely natural. Designer ecosystems can save species that are going extinct.

Marris argues that the best type of conservation blends together the needs of humans and nature for a happy medium. An example that she provides that is working towards benefits for both humans and nature is the Duwamish River. The river is an important place that not only functions as a habitat but also a “active industrial waterway” (133). Though the water is polluted, cleanup efforts are being made to improve the ecosystem. A key point that Marris points out is how people are not asking for the entire river to be cleaned up completely and returned to a more ecologically friendly state since the river also provides a vital source of jobs. Perhaps because this idea does not require a drastic change in how humans already altering their behavior that it is often overlooked as a solution. Yet this might also be a selling point, because it is so simple, people might be more willing to adhere to it.