Login
Join This Site
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
-
Professor Jason Munshi-South
jason [at] nycevolution.orgITF Ben Miller
benjamin.miller [at] macaulay.cuny.eduITF Kara Van Cleaf
kvancleaf [at] gc.cuny.edu NY Times Science Section
- ESA’s Hera Asteroid Mission Launches on SpaceX Rocket in Florida October 10, 2024
- What to Know About the 2024 Nobel Prizes October 10, 2024
- Can Your Electric Vehicle Catch Fire During a Hurricane? October 10, 2024
Downstate Stakeholder – Don’t take it out on the New Yorkers!
Home to over 18.9 million people, the New York City Metropolitan Area, consisting of “New York City, Long Island, Northern New Jersey, and Northeastern Pennsylvania” (Vintinner) requires tremendous efforts in waste disposal and clean drinking water. New York City prides itself in the quality of its drinking water that boasts to be the “champagne of drinking waters” (Vintinner). To further protect our valuable resource, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spread the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), giving Governor Pataki the options to filter the source water or meet a level of water quality.
The tremendous costs of building and maintaining the filtration plant in the Catskill Delaware water supply would paid by the New Yorkers themselves but it would hit the lower income families the most, doubling their water rates, and effectively closing the housing projects where landlords cannot raise additional water costs. While the argument of maintaining water quality remains one of the utmost important priorities for the metropolitan area, if there is not enough funding to carry it through, it will need the minimal amount of resources possible to keep it functioning.
Mayor Bloomberg announced on November 30th that Hurricane Sandy victims will have relief from their water bills. They have not had access to their supplies because of their damaged property. Any “residential and commercial buildings that have been red- or yellow-tagged by the city will not have to make a monthly water bill payment until June 1, 2013” (Wrobleski). Bloomberg said, “by deferring water bill payments and other charges, New Yorkers can focus their attention and money on more immediate and pressing needs.” New Yorkers currently need time to recooperate and having to pay more to filter the water is not our immediate priority. Perhaps by next year when people have resituated into new neighborhoods and new living conditions, it would be logical to develop a filtration system that protects the purity of the water in Catskill/Delaware water supply.
The reality is that New York is not ready for another major financial burden while in its recovery state. Thus, the responsibility of paying for these burdens should fall on the company that are pollution or poorly managing their wastes. One of the major causes of microbial contamination is poor waste disposal by large municipal waste treatment systems. Economists say that companies involve in these activities and who are largely responsible should pay for their damage to society or a Pigovian Tax.
Source:
Wrobleski, Tom. “NYC to give Hurricane Sandy victims more time to pay water bills.” Staten Island Advance[Staten Island] 30 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/city_to_give_hurricane_sandy_v.html>.
PRO DEVELOPMENT UPSTATE STAKEHOLDER
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)
Poster Questions
Just realized I posted questions for the wrong topic.
1) How has the water supple been affected by big businesses in the past few years?
2) How has urban settlement by humans affected species diversification?
3) Does the amount of parks and green-land in an area affect the attitudes or hygiene of its inhabitants?
Poster Questions?
1.) What are the affects of the coyote’s and other predatory species migrating into the urban are? Howe are they affected and conversely how are we affected?
2.) How does the runoff from more urbanized areas affect the ph balance of ground water in surrounding boroughs and suburban areas. Is this connected to acid rain and air pollution?
3.) How beneficial are small parks in providing refuge for wild life in urbanized areas. Are their vicinities close enough to allow species migration? Analysis of city parks and what essentials are needed for survival.
Chapter 10: A Menu Of New Goals
In the concluding chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris sends us off into the world with a new perspective. Having gone through the multiple and conflicting issues surrounding conservation through out the previous chapters, Marris presents her clear-cut idea of what concepts to take away from the book and which initiatives to support and follow. She does this by laying out a set of seven goals to be taken into consideration by the human population Marris’ seven goals are direct. However, they also come with their pros and cons- as did many of the other issues in Rambunctious Garden, leaving us to somewhat fend for ourselves when searching for her resounding message.
Marris’ list of goals goes as follows; 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. A few of the these concepts that stood out more to me were the last three having to do with biodiversity, ecological services and the aesthetics of nature. In my opinion these three summed up natures true overall value to us as a dominant species as well as to our ecosystems and the other species that reside within them. However, each of these goals has its trade off and not one is more important than another.
When speaking on biodiversity Marris mentions how defending biodiversity would allow us to defend a multitude of other ideologies such as species diversity, genetic diversity and population diversity. This broad almost indefinability of the term has its pro as well as its cons. Protection of biodiversity gives way to protecting ecosystems and their interconnections rather than just trying to save a particular species. However, because biodiversity is so undefined, the lines between which species are allowed in one system versus another are no so clear, leaving us to wonder why we should protect an ecosystem’s biodiversity that is forever changing.
Marris’ goal #6 to maximize ecosystem services, I felt to be the most relatable to the humans of this anthropogenic era. Many people inherently feel that although nature may be valuable in its existence, humans are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of its services. This is why suggesting the conservation of an ecosystem to preserve a tangibly valuable resource and/ or ecological service would be most effective in gaining support. Marris also explains that despite some selfish reasons for jumping on board, by preserving ecological services, we also as a result preserve biodiversity as well as a host of other environmental causes.
Lastly, Marris appeals to our sense of aesthetics and deriving pleasure from nature by asserting that we protect nature as a whole, just to experience it. Although this point seems vague and somewhat illegitimate because there I no way to quantify the pleasure derived from experiencing or interacting with nature, I agree with its validity. Ultimately if we do not seek to actively conserve what we enjoy, it will be gone or severely diminished. With all of this said, I really enjoyed how Emma Marris ended her list of goals. With all this said and done, Marris implores us to just embrace the change in nature, whether we want to make major conservational changes or to embrace the natural cycles slowly making their own mark on the landscape. Following her aforementioned goals or pursuing a more specific tract of settling a smaller environmental issue Marris wants us to embrace what has become our rambunctious garden in hopes that we learn to appreciate nature more along the way.
Chapters 8 & 9
In Chapter 8 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris brings her focus towards more revolutionary ideals. Different from the first two- thirds or so of the book, this section brings us to the possibilities that may come from changing our view of the natural world. Marris even says that ecologists’ views are changing to think less about restoration of areas to baselines and more towards preservation of natural systems and resources. After having examined and analyzed several main issues tackled by today’s ecologists and conservationists from types of restoration to invasive species and the process of rewilding, Marris makes her point of stating clearly that designer ecosystems looks to be a way for nature to be maintained in the future.
Although this method of designing ecosystems, as Marris describes is in ways progressively better than trying to recreate an entire ecosystem from a historical point of view, it has both benefits as well as trade offs. With more specific goals at hand, such as lowering the nitrogen levels in streams or rebuilding riverbanks to decrease erosion and sediment degradation the chances are greater that more wildlife ecosystems will be preserved. However, at the same time there are consequences such as the increased chances of fish in waters where nitrogen-lowering initiatives are taking place to store mercury in their fatty tissues. In this section of the book, Marris argues that just because an ecosystem is restored to look like it was in the past or to look stable does not mean that its ecological processes are thoroughly beneficial. A point blatantly made by Marris is that at the end of the day, as much as ecologists know about any given ecosystem, the intricate processes within a particular system are not fully understood. Ultimately, Marris envisions the best way for nature to be conserved is for it to be via this new method of designing ecosystems with a key goal in mind.
With this in mind, Marris goes into the next chapter, Conservation Everywhere, to explain and unfold her idea on the future of conservation in more detail. In this chapter Marris describes a world where ecosystems are not designed separate from human existence but looking to integrate into the anthropocene with the use of corridors to expand the habitats of migratory species as well as those that occupy larger areas beyond the national parks and preservations in which they are contained. In this way, greater biodiversity will be able to flourish as species have a larger area to roam. Marris tells of how humans who now have a greater population in urban areas rather than in the suburbs, will in the future, by her predictions, dominate in urban areas- having less of an ecological impact. With this migration of humans to city areas, there would be even more spaces to be turned back into livable habitats for the earth’s species. Marris says that pavement is not forever, suggesting that as we turned grasslands into parking lots, we can revert them back to being natural landscapes. Over these two chapters, Emma Marris takes us into the future she sees in conservation and human interaction with the natural world as we become ever dominant. I am not so sure how much I agree with the connected corridors idea she ha for expanding conservation efforts. However, turning more parking lots and industrial structures into areas that can be used for wildlife seems as though it would be beneficial for animal and plant species as well as the human population.
Questions
Do you think your rambunctious garden is possible globally, or just in first world countries?
If there were to be a global initiative to manage the conservationist movements you’ve suggested, who do you think should manage it? (e.g. governments, private sector, separate international board)
Have you had any thoughts about using new movements in technology in helping the environment?
Poster Questions
1. How have the modes of transportation used by New Yorkers shifted in recent years? (Car, train, bike, carpool, etc.)
2. Does the amount of parkland in each borough affect the borough’s air quality?
Post 10/7/12: Poster Questions
How have beekeeping policies affected biodiversity and flora patterns? How have bees themselves coped with the urban environment?
How has air traffic affected the migratory patterns of birds over New York City? To what extent is the disruption as significant as it is publicized?
What is the effect of high-rises on wildlife compared to smaller, low-story structures? To what extent do they significantly affect terrestrial species?
New Goals and Compromises – Chapter 10
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.
Chapter 10: A Menu of New Goals
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).
Marris Chapter 10
In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris lists seven goals for conserving nature. Throughout the novel, she presented new methods of attempting to save nature because older conservation methods are flawed and impractical. In order to understand how to best preserve nature in an area, we need know what our goals are. She explains that “no single goal will work in all situations” so people will need to come up with a common set of goals for each project. She then explains the seven goals, describing what the idea behind each one and why it might not work in certain cases.
The first goal is to protect the rights of other species. The idea behind this goal is that every species has an intrinsic value and should therefore be protected. Two problems that this goal faces involve determining what the intrinsic value of a species is and conflicts between the rights of individual plants or animals and the protection of a population or species. As an example of the first problem, this goal is sometimes only applied to animals when plants and landscapes deserve rights too. Marris exemplifies the second problem by suggesting a case in which cats are killing all the albatross nestlings on an island and the cats may have to be killed.
The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. The idea behind this goal is humans like certain large animals and don’t want to see them go extinct. In many cases, these charismatic megafauna are keystone species, which greatly impact an ecosystem, and protecting them will benefit the entire ecosystem. A problem with this goal is that protecting charismatic megafauna may not always be beneficial for other species in the ecosystem. The example Marris provides for this is an elephant park in Africa that has become overcrowded with elephants and plants species are suffering as a result.
The third goal is to slow the rate of extinctions. The idea behind this goal is that we should treat all species as equally and return the rate of extinctions to its state before humans interfered. The problems with this goal are that it can be too costly and it doesn’t necessarily save ecosystems.
The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. The idea behind this goal is to focus on saving species that are weird because they contain genes that have come from millions of years of evolution and aren’t present anywhere else. One problem with this goal is that a simple solution to it would be to simply save genetic samples of these species. This would mean that, although the genetic material would be safe, the organisms themselves might not exist alive in the real world.
The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity. The idea behind this goal is to protect variety of species, genes, and ecosystems. Two problems with this goal are that it is extremely complex and it may put more value on keystone species than redundant species.
The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. The idea behind this goal is to focus on ecosystems and species that help humanity. The problem with this goal is that doesn’t necessarily protect species or ecosystems that do not provide a service but simply have an existence value, or a value that comes from just knowing that it exists.
The seventh goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. The basic idea behind this goal is to preserve natural environments because people like them. The problem with this is that people have the tendency to put less value on environments that are not pristine.
I believe that these are good goals to have for conservation and agree with Marris that we need a variety of goals so that we can protect the many different types of ecosystems that have different types of values for humans. Marris has presented many solutions to ecological problems but almost every one has drawbacks. In order to determine which solutions are viable for a particular problem, we need to know goals and which drawbacks ae acceptable given those goals.
A Menu of New Goals
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.
Rambunctious Garden Chapters 8-9
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.
Seven Goals for Society
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.
Chap 10
In this final chapter, Marris discusses the various goals of conservationists and ecologists and difficulties of each goal. The first goal is to protect the rights of other species. However, there are debates on whether one species is equal to another. Does a cockroach have the same right as a whale? The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna. They are the large animals that humans like and don’t want to go extinct. The example given is the elephants eating all of the plants. Which is more important, the number of species saved or the type of species? The third goal is to slow rate of extinctions. In this goal, we treat all species as equal. According to one person, based on algorithms created, if a money threshold to save the area is not clear for the area, the area might as well not be saved. That means a person’s favorite species might not get saved. Also, stopping extinctions doesn’t mean saving ecosystems necessarily. The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. However if someone just wants DNA sequences, then we can just freeze tissue samples of animals but some people might not want that for obvious reasons.
The fifth goal is to define and defend biodiversity. Biodiversity has become shorthand for complexity of an ecosystem. Biodiversity calls for species interacting together to create a beautiful and complex web. The term includes so much that it brings up the question what groups of biodiversity should count: are ecosystems or microbes and fungi more important than say fish in the ocean? The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem services. Governments have started giving money incentives like tax cuts to stop deforestation of plants, etc. so they can continue the services. However one problem with this approach is people now expect to receive money to do a good thing instead of being punished for doing a bad thing. Also if one is only concerned about ecosystem services, then there is no reason to not plant a monoculture of plants to absorb CO2. It is not always the case that biodiverse systems are the most efficient in services. It has been listed as more like a way to reason with people who don’t listen to the other goals and care only about their benefit. The seventh goal is to protect aesthetic and spiritual sense of nature.
She concludes the book by saying we can manage nature for different reasons. We have changed all of it and must take responsibility for our actions. Even though baselines can’t be returned to completely, we can control nature to help fit some of goals in mind.
After reading this book and reading the goals, her idea doesn’t seem too foreign to me. The goals I have read in the book seem logical and some are already embedded in my mind before reading the book such as protecting the beauty of nature, though usually only pristine areas which I learn may not be as pristine as I thought. Now I realize that the idea of human interference in nature is such a controversial topic. Not just cutting down trees but also changing the ecosystems and the species that live there. However, as she said, everything is up to debate regarding what humans should do for nature.
Rambunctious Garden, Chapter 10
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.
Marris Chapter 10
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.
Chapter 10
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.
Chapter 10
In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris concludes the concept of rambunctious garden by stating that we are to manage our planet in different places for different goals like historical restoration, species preservation, and ecosystem services. It is through rambunctious gardening that can achieve the combination of goals we desire for. She also describes seven goals that conservationists commonly pursue for.
The first goal is to protect the right of other species. This goal focuses on biocentric view of life, giving species and ecosystem moral status (154). Deep ecologists are the ones that take on the biocentric view and believe that all living things have intrinsic value and should be protected. Some suggests that it is a moral obligation to the natural world to reduce our intense impacts on the planet and to reduce human population (155). I find this concept a little extreme since reducing human population is restricting the rights of human to expand, which is also a part of nature.
The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna, who are large animals that “humans like and really don’t want to see go extinct” (156). According to theories, most popular species are also keystone species, species that have great impact on the ecosystem. It would lead to umbrella conservation, where conserving the keystone species will help conserve the ones depending on the keystone species.
The third goal is to slow the rate of extinction. By that it means to return the rate of extinction back to its “back ground rate” (158). Statutes like the Endangered Species Act are also passed to make it equal weight for species to be protected. However, if we have every species equally weight and only focus on halting extinctions, some species are not to be saved when budget is tight because some are more economic feasible to save than others.
The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. The reason being is that species with genetic variations are likely to adapt to changing climates (161). We are to prevent genetically weird species from going extinct. If they go extinct, we can be losing a million years of evolution. However, genetic diversity might lead to preserving genes of species in a freezer that might not do anything that will help the ecosystem nor the species physically.
The fifth goal is to defend biodiversity. Biodiversity usually mean a variety of species that exist. However, true biodiversity should also expand to variety of gene within each species and variety of ecosystems on Earth (162). It is also complexity of an ecosystem where species interact with each other to form a beautiful web of interrelations produced by evolution. We should conserve so that we can maintain the complex relationships between species in ecosystems.
The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem service. It suggests conservations to occur to preserve the services that ecosystems provide for humanity like filtering water and dampening floods (164). The services and supplies ecosystems provide are finite, where the growing population of humanity depletes them more and more. Part of the conservation effort under this goal should be to pass legislative polices like financial incentives and taxes for people not to destroy ecosystems. However, it implies that people are entitled to destroy nature, and are given compensation if they do not. Also, the effort under this goal would encourage the planting of monocultures of plants that provide the services we need most and might reduce biodiversity.
The last goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience on nature. For most people, nature is a place to refresh their spirit (167). Some ecosystem and species also represent specific culture (168). We are to conserve the beauty in the cultural and spiritual experience that nature is providing for us.
With many goals, it is difficult to fit all of them into each ecosystem. Each ecosystem has to compromise its interests and to find the best goal or goals for it to be conserved. We need to be honest about our goals and costs, and to keep land from mindless developments (171). We are also going to do everything we can to keep green on this planet, even if they are not native landscape. We are to manage earth to reach our goals, which is called rambunctious gardening.
Chapter 10
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.
The Last of the Chapters
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.
Chapter 10
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.
Rambunctious Garden – A Menu of New Goals
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).
Marris Chapter 10
In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Marris lists seven different goals for conservation. The seven goals are to protect the right of other species, protect charismatic megafauna, slow the rate of extinction, protect genetic diversity, define and defend biodiversity, maximized ecosystem services, and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. The goals that I believe are most important and would like to see accomplished are to protect genetic diversity and to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature.
Protecting genetic diversity is important because it is where the source of diversity in all life comes from. Even in a species, there are differences in the genetics of different populations. Genetic diversity also shows how different species have evolved over time. One of the examples given was that if we lost two species of three-toed sloths, we would lose 15 million years of evolution. Like with the other conservation goals, there are problems with this goal, the main one being that if the genes are more important than the actual animals, there is no need to keep them alive, like to breed in captivity or anything since you can just freeze tissue samples for the genes.
As Marris says, “we like the way nature looks, smells, and feels.” I definitely feel that way, and believe that is it important to preserve the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. I think it is really nice to be able to get away from all the business for a while and just look at and appreciate nature and to marvel at how truly amazing it is. She mentions how many people only allow themselves to be “moved or to find beautiful only that which we believe to be pristine,” but we can find beauty in all nature if we adjust out perception. I definitely agree with this and believe that we can find beauty in nature that has been man-made elements to it. It just like how Central Park isn’t completely natural and was developed by people. People still find it beautiful and visit there all the time. Even if there are cans and garbage on a piece of nature, such as in a forest or beach, the beauty of the area can be easily found. This goal would also appeal to many people since most people do enjoy nature and feel some connection to it.
Marris talks about many goals in the last chapter, all with their own pros and cons. There is no right way to go about conservation and different goals can and should be used for different areas. One thing is clear though, which is that conservation is needed. Since humans have changed and affected nature so much, we can’t go back, but we should instead focus and preserving what we have left and managing it better as a place for all species to live.
Marris Ch 10: New Goals
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.
Closing Chapter
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.
Chapter 10
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.
Goals for the future
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.
Marris Chapters 10 Response
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.
Marris 10 – A Menu of New Goals – 10/4
In the concluding chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris leaves us with the seven conservation goals she believes we must work together to achieve. In laying out these goals, Marris also confronts the problems associated with them, further making us realize the scope of the project.
The first goal that Marris cites is protecting the rights of other species. In short, we all coexist together and all have intrinsic value. Therefore, we all have basic rights that must be protected. This is a very difficult goal to achieve, in that everyone disagrees on the value of certain species over others. The contradiction that Marris presents is that to protect diversity, we sometimes must intentionally kill off certain species; thereby valuing them less. This leads us to goal #2: protecting charismatic megafauna. Humans seem to have soft spots for certain species over others, namely “big mammals with big eyes” (156). Due to the likeable nature of these species, efforts to protect them take priority over smaller fauna. These keystone species lead to umbrella conservation, which can have undesirable effects, as with elephants in South Africa.
Goal #3 calls for slowing the rate of extinctions. This goal seems like a given, especially considering how many ecologists are against it (obsessing over restoring baselines, introducing proxies, etc.). The effects of this goal are hard to describe. It can potentially work… but then ecosystems might change while the species is being bred in captivity. Of course, we must also keep in mind resources, namely monetary ones, and whether or not it should be concentrated on this goal over others. Again, certain species just seem to be held higher than others. While the previous goal focused on protecting species from extinction, goal #4 is centered on protecting genetic diversity. The purpose for this is that though “species are real entities…the distinctions are not clear-cut” (160). Preserving genetic diversity may be better because it is what creates diversity, which is favorable in a changing world. Though we could shave “millions of years of evolution not represented in any other gene pool” (161), opponents ask if frozen tissue samples are better than having actual species around. It may save “all the unites but severs all the ecological links between them” (162).
The fifth goal, which sounds the best to me in theory, is attaching a definition and defending biodiversity. The reason it sounds so appealing is because it is so general; it encompasses species, genes, and ecosystems. “Evolution has produced a beautiful web of interrelations” (162) and maintaining this chain of dependence is necessary. This requires an unfathomable amount of resources. It may also be the most difficult goal to achieve because of how much it tries to achieve. “Nevertheless, it may come closest to capturing what people like about nature” (163).
Goal six strives to maximize ecosystem services. This goal is selfish in that nature is being assigned a value solely based on its useful to humanity. Species that do not directly affect us, but are necessary in the chain, are assigned a lower intrinsic value. This same selfishness is what led to the depletion and extinction of many species. The last goal also focuses on another need of nature that humans have used for years: spiritual and aesthetic experiences. It goes without saying we have a soft sport for nature that we have memories with or that are beautiful, such as Niagara Falls. I personally disagree that people narrowly consider pristine areas as more beautiful; it holds the same beauty, it may just considered less valuable to some. Take Central Park as an example. I’m sure many people who visit it still regard it as beautiful and highly valuable. As Marris says, “humans and birds have collaborated to create this beauty” (169).
Thus far, my commentary on past chapters has been supportive of the notion of a rambunctious garden. However, I have only advocated human intervention only to a certain extent. After reading through this last chapter, I am more aware of the role that humans need to play to achieve a rambunctious garden. Marris’ closing lines, however, really struck me: “We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate. It is our duty to manage it. Luckily, it can be a pleasant, even joyful task if we embrace it in the right spirit. Let the rambunctious gardening begin” (171). Marris effectively puts into perspective that it is our duty to maintain the Earth’s ecosystems and does so with an optimistic outlook. Having the world be a rambunctious garden gives us the best of both worlds: aesthetics and thriving ecosystems. Though ecologists might favor pre-human baselines, the general population may be more drawn to the beautiful.
Chapter 10
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.
Marris Chapter 10
Emma Marris concludes Rambunctious Garden by suggesting there is a multitude of environmental decisions to be made that are influenced by a variety of factors. Given the amount of time, money and effort many of these processes require, there is undoubtedly going to be debate and controversy regarding which progressive action is best. I agree with Marris that reaching a “common goal” can be difficult since “no single goal will work in all situations” (154). Considering the variety of sources, of both utilitarian and intrinsic belief, and the wide range of opinions these sources feel strongly about, reaching a common goal can be “extremely difficult” (154). I agree with Aldo Leopold’s idea regarding how humans should perceive nature, specifically the importance of reaching the point when “taking care of ourselves becomes the same thing as taking care of the environment” (154). If we, as a population, recognize that our existence is directly connected to both animal and plant species, perhaps we will learn that we can in fact coexist and that we have no option but to respect and appreciate the nature that surrounds us. We can then progress to make this coexistence possible by experimenting with the various processes Marris introduces, such as rewilding and assisted migration. Marris makes a valid point when she says that we must refrain from “shying away from the occasional bold experiment” (170) and work together to preserve biodiversity. This is only feasible if we are progressive and willing to try new things. To compromise with those that oppose radical change, we could perhaps begin by testing our methods on a smaller scale and then, if successful, extend their implementation. Although I agree with the majority of Marris’ goals, I oppose that which focuses on solely protecting “genetic diversity” as it seems rather impractical if it implies practices, even if not as radical, as “bluebirds existin[ing] only as frozen tissue samples” (162). One particularly interesting concept in chapter ten that illustrates the complexity of our ecosystem is that concerning elephants and the importance of having a balanced number of species in an ecosystem. Prior to this reading, given the rarity of elephants, it had never occurred to me that in some places too many elephants in an area have been of concern. The consequences of having too dense of an elephant population can be detrimental to the ecosystem, threatening the continuous growth of crops and wildlife. This case illustrates both the complexity and interrelated nature of ecosystems. By studying elephant populations and the specific needs of their habitat, for example, we can recognize the importance of treating each ecosystem with a unique perspective without generalizing from one to the next. By doing so, we can work with local populations to meet goals that are both specific and more feasible in that particular region. It is often human nature to be concerned with those things that are relevant to us, as is demonstrated by Marris’ discussion of ecosystem services. We must therefore emphasize that both animal and plant species directly relate to each and every one of us as we live in what Leopald refers to as “the grand web of life” (154). In parallel to the anthropocentric mindset, we cannot think of nature as a separate entity and must do what Marris suggests in the beginning of her book and “admit our role and even embrace it” (2). Marris concludes her book with a powerful message, emphasizing, “it is our duty to manage” nature and that we can do so for “different ends” (171). But in order to do so, we must be optimistic and recognize all possibilities with an open-mind, understanding that “aesthetic and spiritual values,” among others, “are not limited to native or pristine-seeming places” (168).
Rambunctious Garden: Chapter 10
Marris’ concluding chapter lists a series of common goals that she says need to be met for these new, alternative conservationist ideas to be plausible. However, setting up common goals proves to be easier said than done, since there are so many opinions floating around these hotly debated conservation issues. Firstly, there are the ethical arguments of who has rights to what, how to define intrinsic value, and whether one thing in nature can be sacrificed for the goodness of something else. Advocating for individual species can be just as hard, as Marris points out it is often “ extremely political and highly emotional” (page 157). Protecting diversity also proves difficult as a result of various laws and acts with hard-to-define or unenforceable policies. Another of her goals, Maximizing ecosystem services, seems to be a plausible goal with a very strong argument, that even she agrees seems to be very popular among conservationists today – we have a finite number of resources, and with our growing population, unless we take care of the ecosystems which help provide us with those resources, we may one day run out. Even this goal however, while favorable, does not seem very concrete. In fact, it seemed to me that Marris’ concluding chapter and the arguments she tried to make was very vague, and almost discredited all the specific ideas and themes she has brought up throughout the book.
While I did appreciate the fact that in this final chapter Marris acknowledged the many unavoidable difficulties and challenges that will undoubtedly arise before any of her earlier proposals can come to fruition, I think that making these the main focus of her concluding chapter really undermined the arguments made. While I agree that we must be realistic with our goals, be open about the costs associated with them, and acknowledge the political and ethical battles they may spark, ending her book on that note may not have been the best idea in my opinion. Her conclusions, while admirably realistic, left me feeling a bit underwhelmed. What could have sparked a call to action instead left me with restrictive thoughts in my mind, and I couldn’t help but to go over all her previous themes in my head – rewilding, designer ecosystems, assisted migration – and think of all the difficulties and challenges that would stand in the way of their application.
I enjoyed Marris book as a whole, I wholeheartedly agree that it is time to drop the traditional conservationist “baseline” ideas and accept that we have forever altered our planet and there is no turning back. Instead, we should all work to make sure nature and humans can coexist in the mutually beneficial relationships that can come out of many of Marris’ proposals. The Rambunctious Garden is the future of conservation in my opinion, especially in an urban setting such as NYC, and I can only hope that I can see that future begin to come to fruition during my lifetime.
Rambunctious Garden – Chapter 10
In chapter 10 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris discusses seven different ecological goals. These seven goals 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 goals conflict with each other and in order to get the best possible scenario for the environment, there must be a balance. In addition, there must be collaboration between landowners, governments, and other interest groups when deciding goals for a specific ecosystem. This can be extremely difficult and cost a tremendous amount of money.
I think the first goal, protecting the rights of other species, can be bias. This is because humans do not consider all species equal. Humans look at some species, such as exotic mammals and beautiful plants, as having more intrinsic value than species such as mosses and shrubs. Therefore, they are more likely to fight for the rights of the species they find more intrinsically valuable. This might mean intentionally killing one species in order to save another. Another problem with this goal is that it will limit the use of the land. This could hinder human growth and development tremendously.
The second goal, protecting charismatic megafauna, also has its problems. Although this goal will save megafauna, it might lead to the extinction of other species, such as smaller mammals and plants. Also, it might lead to an overpopulation of megafauna, which can destroy an ecosystem. This has been shown by elephants in certain parts of Africa.
The third goal, slowing the rate of extinctions, also has flaws. Like goal one, this goal revolves around human bias. It is financially impossible to protect every endangered species, so certain species will be protected, while others will not. Also, if ecologists weigh every species equally, some of the species that humans consider the most intrinsically valuable might not be able to be saved. Finally, if species are brought into captivity but go extinct in the wild, they will have no home to be released to. Therefore, although species can be saved, there is no way to save ecosystems.
I believe goal four, protecting genetic diversity, is one of the better goals. This is because genetic diversity is extremely important since it shows how different organisms have evolved. By protecting genetic diversity, ecologists are able to preserve unique organisms that are endemic to particular regions of the world. However, this goal also involves bias because humans must determine the organisms that are the most important to save. Nevertheless, I believe more money should be devoted to protecting genetic diversity.
Goal five, defending biodiversity, is another goal that is ideal. However, it has its flaws. Defending biodiversity on a global scale requires a tremendous amount of time and money. Since there is not enough money to help every ecosystem, some ecosystems will be chosen over others. Also, defending biodiversity might require killing some invasive species that humans consider intrinsically valuable, such as cats.
Goal six, maximizing ecosystem services, also has many flaws. Since the most diverse ecosystems often do not produce the most services, people who focus solely on this goal might decrease biodiversity in order to increase services. Another problem with ecosystem services is that people might exploit them in order to increase profits. For example, members of the timber industry might destroy an ecosystem so they can plant trees that will be used for wood.
Goal seven, protecting the beauty of nature, is definitely the most important goal to me. I think we need to have parks and islands that are complete wilderness. These areas can act as an escape from the stresses of urban life. However, I also believe we must change our perception of what nature is and not only focus on “pristine areas.” Every aspect of nature can be considered beautiful, as long as the person looks deep enough and understands nature’s true value.
I agree with Marris that different goals have to be utilized in different ecosystems. Ecologists must determine the best set of goals for a particular area and allocate funds depending on these goals. I also agree with Marris that humans must manage nature. If humans do not preserve nature, economic interests will prevail and biodiversity will continue to decrease.
Rambunctious Garden was a fascinating book that enlightened me on many key areas of ecological debate. The book definitely has made me look at nature in a new light and made me better appreciate my surroundings. After reading the book, I am more aware of the problems that ecosystems face and will do my best to address these problems any way I can.
Rambunctious Gardening
It took me up until this point, the final sentence of chapter ten, to fully understand my point of view on everything Emma Marris has discussed. “In different places, in different chunks, we can manage nature for different ends–for historical restoration, for species preservation, for self-willed wilderness, for ecosystem services, for food and fiber and fish and flame trees and frogs. We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate” (171). Throughout the first nine chapters, and even half of the tenth, I found myself repeatedly saying that humanity should just let nature be. I am strong proponent of Darwinian theory and natural selection; whatever has happened to certain species and/or ecosystems, could partially or entirely, be attributed to human interaction, but regardless it was all apart the natural course of evolution. Man is just another aspect of Earth’s evolution and all intervention should be accounted as such. Now, I believe that humanity, animals, and plants are all players in the evolutionary game, but because man’s intervention is overwhelming and overpowering, we are obligated to somewhat go against natural processes and aid the other, less powerful players. We have an unfair advantage over the other two; humans, through technology and the like, have directly and indirectly altered the environment unnaturally, which is why, more specifically, we have this obligation of conservation.
I appreciated Marris’ initial claim that “Once you admit that you can’t put things back the way they were,” you get to a more realistic approach to conservation–various goals to strive to achieve. As far as practicality and realism goes, I’d rule out goal 1. The “deep ecologists” viewpoint seems much too extreme, though I do agree with the idea that “land as a unit has a right to run itself without human meddling in some places” (155). I find it important and almost humbling to have certain areas solely operated under the command of Mother Nature. The second goal, protecting charismatic megafauna, has its pros and cons, just as any of the others, and I found it most similar to defining and defending biodiversity–the goal with which I most strongly support. The third goal of slowing the rate of extinctions seemed like common sense in regard to conservation. What makes it a goal is the difficulty in actually going about slowing extinctions due to the limited amount of monetary resources allocated for conservationism, though this approach, as Marris states, may not be beneficial to overall ecosystems.
Protecting genetic diversity, goal four, is an ultra-modern approach to conservationism. The more technical, scientific approach requires the storage of actual genetic samples–tissue or cells stored for their particular DNA sequences. This goal seemed impractical without even a clear definition of “species.” Attempting to preserve biodiversity, or complexity, of ecosystems feels like a natural goal for conservationists to work towards. It encompasses so much, making it an arduous task, “Nevertheless, it may come closest to capturing what people like about nature” (163). Maximizing ecosystem services is vague and controversial and protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature came across as almost a hail Mary, last resort attempt to somehow appeal to and gain support from whomever. Ultimately, regardless of what the goal of conservation is at any given time, the interaction between humans and wildlife is a “conscious and responsible and joyful cohabitation [that] is the future of our planet, our vibrant, thriving, rambunctious garden” (170).
Post 10/3/12: Rambunctious Garden 10
As far as endings go, Marris’ last chapter in Rambunctious Garden was certainly a hodgepodge of ideas. However, they are admittedly more ambiguously biased than the previous ideas and chapters that she proposed. For everything from saving species to sustaining ecological services, each concept was presented, and then critiqued for their individual flaws. While it certainly put the tone of how ecology is being hotly debated now—that each and every suggestion is radical, impractical, unpredictable, or, in the best of cases, sensible—I believe that it also put a damper on the arguments that she spent the entirety of the book building up. Nevertheless, it perhaps underscored Marris’ own view of how the practice of ecology is doing in terms of the typically complex interaction between humans and human organizations and institutions.
On a different note, it seems as if Marris’ suggestions seemed too… broad. It may be the fact that they were merely suggestions and not yet implementable on the scale that she desired (pachyderms in America?). It is also probably the fact that many of the institutions and people that she did mention were still hashing out even basic or initial plans, likely having had to return to the drawing board a few times before (possibly) achieving any sort of compromise between ecologists, scientists, governments and/or other involved parties. Still, while she indeed mention with great detail the anthropological effects and occurrences on various ecosystems or ecological actions, the one absence that seemed to be quite glaring would be the urban-rural link. Yes, Marris did affirm the prospect of letting a lawn go unattended in chapter 9, to great biodiverse effects, but those scenarios are often of the suburban and rural kind; furthermore, everything from aesthetics to governmental regulations to land disputes make such a project rather difficult in its own right (not that I would mind being called a crazy old cat person). If she truly suggests a high-rise urban counterpart to a rambunctious landscape, though, that sort of contradicts the smooth ecosystemic transitions and connectivities that she had earlier implied. To that effect, she did not offer a solution to how that line would work itself out (nor did she offer a solution to predators of rewilding knocking at our doors, but that was another blog).
In all, the book provided an insight into the rather massy and ambiguous life of an ecologist. Unlike mathematics, where many of the concepts are hard facts, there was a serious lack of rights and wrongs, yeas and naes, just a really big gray area that worked beyond three dimensions. Whether we progress in ecological enlightenment fast enough to avoid some impending cataclysmic anthropologically made “natural” disaster (or biohazards… you never know if the zombie apocalypse is around the corner) may be the deciding factor of whether we can act soon enough at all. Alas, time goes on and the earth keeps spinning, whether we’re alive to see it or not.
Rambunctious Garden- Chapter 8 and 9
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.
Marris Chapters 8 and 9
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.
Marris, Chapter 8 & 9
In chapter eight of her book, Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the concept of a designer ecosystem. The idea is to establish and achieve a goal for an ecosystem without expending a vast amount of resources in the process. In addition, Marris also discusses the notion that conservation can be implemented everywhere through a combination of designer ecosystems and other methods discussed in previous chapters.
To begin, designer ecosystems seem to be the most practical approach that Marris has described regarding conservation because it is cost effective and goal oriented. First, scientists decide what goal is most important to them concerning a specific ecosystem. Then, they go about implementing only the changes that will help achieve their particular goal. Meaning, they do not waste time and resources attempting to revert to the baseline in hopes of recreating an ecosystem that is not guaranteed to survive in our current climate (179). Instead, scientists are able to ensure that a certain species or ecological function remains intact by focusing on that specific species or function. For example, Dee Boersma, an ecologist at the University of Washington, wanted to protect the population of Galapagos penguins from introduced rats. As a result, he drilled nesting holes into the rocks of their ecosystem, making it difficult for the rats to prey on the eggs (183). Hence, by focusing on preserving the penguins, Brown was able to find a cost effective solution that allowed the penguin to survive predation without having to control the rat population. Altogether, this idea suggests that there are efficient ways of achieving what we desire in an ecosystem without going back to the baseline or trying to achieve the pristine.
In chapter nine, Marris makes a general claim that conservation involves thinking beyond the protected areas by continuously adding lands to the portfolio. Meaning, we should consider nature in unlikely places such as industrial rivers, farms, and even our own backyards. Hence, the effort to conserve is always complemented by adding land to the mix. This is extremely beneficial because it creates larger natural areas, making it easier for big species to avoid extinction (196). Scientists don’t agree completely on the methods to use, but many advocate creating small reserves in private gardens, yards, rooftops, etc. as a way of starting the process without having to rely on big corporations or the government. However, Marris correctly points out that to create a movement behind such conservation, it will require both a change in aesthetics and a change in the values we hold toward nature. As a result, we need to embrace nature that is not pristine and begin to see value in nature that exists in the background of human lives.
Altogether, Marris’s description of designer ecosystems as goal oriented and cost effective makes it easy to support it over the traditional approach. In addition, her idea that conservation can be accomplished in the most unlikely of places gives hope to the movement because everyone can do their part by creating little reserves in the backdrop of their living environment.
Rambunctious Garden Chapters 6-7
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.
Rambunctious Gardeners
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).
Chap 8 and 9
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.
Designer Ecosystems and Hybrid Co-Existence
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.
Chapter 8 and 9
In Chapter 8 and 9, Marris discusses designer ecosystem and conservation in areas not commonly thought of. First, she urges conservationists to look at the future to aim for something valuable instead of trying to get a previous ecosystem back that is almost impossible (129). If biotic and abiotic changes both occur to an ecosystem, like the Eucalyptus woodland, there is no going back to the historical antecedent (129). Designer ecosystem is the system that she proposes, which uses shortcuts to get a landscape to look and work the way they wanted (125). For example, they will allow sunk ships to stay in water for coral reefs to live on or to slow down stream flow with rocks and root balls inside wire baskets. Although designer ecosystems do not bring an ecosystem back to its previous state, it does “heal wounded nature and return it to a stable “natural” state” (126). Compared to returning an ecosystem to its previous state that works with almost impossible and immeasurable goals, a designer ecosystem can work with measurable goals that are valuable, such as nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or maintaining endangered species. However, as stated by Marris, ecosystem is too complex at the moment for humans to completely understand (130). There is no way that we know everything about an ecosystem and every interaction between species in the ecosystem, making some designer ecosystems fail. Also, natural selection and the force of nature can always outperform our plans for designer ecosystem at any time. Not to mention that a noticeable population of human race will still like to have the nature in its “raw” state. As a result, Marris proposes a “best-case future”, where designer ecosystem and island civilization coexist (131). It means that when we engineer ecosystems the way we wanted, we also leave some areas out of human population and let it run wildly.
Besides the designer ecosystem, Marris want to maximize conservation effort by urging conservation in places never thought of before. She suggests three areas where that can happen. First, she suggests building nature on farms and ranches because they are set up to grow things (142). Farm and ranch land cover half of ice-free land, which is a good idea to start conservation there since they are areas often being neglected. We can develop organic farms or pay farmers to let birds feed on and live on their plantation. Second, Marris suggests the combining interests of industry and conservation. Industrial space can become more natural by adding green (143). For example, developing green roofs on top of a factory can create habitat for organisms and help industrial processes by reducing water runoff and absorbing sunlight to reduce urban heat island effect. Lastly, Marris suggests conservational effort in our own garden space, or rambunctious gardens. She urges people to plant endangered species in their garden, to tear out lawns, to build green roof, to make rain gardens, and to create wild space without too much interference. One might argue that a garden is too small for conservation efforts. However, these small gardens are linked-up by pollinators and corridors, making them a metapopulation that can create a high biodiversity. However, when making a conservation effort, people should consider how much of nature they can handle. Conservation everywhere allows people to love nature and to support conservation instead of just leaving the responsibility to other agencies (150). Everyone can carry the responsibility of conservation.
I think both systems will be great conservation efforts toward better functioning ecosystems and higher biodiversity. There might be risks of carrying out designer ecosystem because nature can often outperform the designer ecosystem and turn it into be something undesired and unexpected. However, if successful, they are great to have to improve the functions of ecosystems. Conserving everywhere is absolutely feasible if people are willing to participate and realize its benefits. Not only can it create a pleasant and aesthetic space, it can also contribute to conservation. These gardens can also provide data for ecologists so that they can plan assisted migration and other means of conservation. They are both methods that enhances and preserves nature, which is something that is going forward instead of backward in time.
Chapters 8 & 9
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.
Designer Ecosystems
What many people believe to be natural in the wilderness actually contains anthropogenic influences. The ideal kind of river that most are accommodated to are the meandering rivers “thought of as ‘natural’ today” (Marris). By following the methods for creating these streams, conservationists consequently raise mercury levels in the river. There was no efficient way to optimize the environment through restoration. In fact, it was near impossible to restore the ecosystem back to the baseline. One solution to this problem is designer ecosystems.
Rather than restoring what was previously existing, these ecologists study how these environment operate and design. These restoration jobs can be counted as a redesign because these designers never achieve the level of biodiversity of what previously thrived in the area. Restoration ecologists “use lots of ‘hacks’”(Marris) to manipulate the natural environment to function harmoniously. Some great examples are having “wire baskets filled with rocks or the root balls of dead trees chained in place to slow stream flows
and create nooks and crannies for animals” and also having “old ships sunk to provide places for coral reefs to live” (Marris). These hacks are merely natural mimicry that recreates items utilized by creatures in the wild to shelter themselves. On the other side of the spectrum, we see scientists thowing the idea of restoring out the window and instead suggest the idea of “designing, engineering, cooking up”(Marris) strategies that heal the natural world.
Coming from humbler origins, some scientists simply call it “whatever works” (Marris). Dee Boersma, a Seattle ecologist seeks to preserve the Galapagos penguin through introducing a new habitat. Boersma simply “makes the habitat better than ‘normal’ for the birds” (Marris). The point to revisit is that these habitats work because these ecoystems are ever changing ones. When they try to restore environments, they are simply bringing about the habitat’s new current state. Baselines have been rendered moot since the Pre-European human alteration.
The third case to examine is a hybrid ecosystem that discusses abiotic alterations to the environment. Despite the minor climate shift, the organism can still survive. For instance, the “eucalyptus woodlands in Southwest Australia” (Marris) survived some mild climate shifts. What would benefit the woodlands would be the fertilizing methods, These scientists let us know how species react to the climate shifts and how to react when it does happen.
Faced with environmental dilemmas, these ecologists will be able to scope effective restoration campaigns. Science is constantly breaking ground and we begin asking ourselves, can we get the best from both worlds? Nature continually teaches us the relationships and behaviors of various species and how the interactions can be different through various methods of restoration.
Rambunctious Garden, Chapters 8&9
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.
Marris Chapters 8&9
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.