Emma Marris credits Dave Foreman with coining the term “rewilding” during the mid-1990s. The idea is that it is the responsibility of the large animals at the top of the food chain to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse. The argument is that these predators keep a check on populations by providing food competition. Without them, one species will dominate in numbers, devour its favorite foods, lead to simplification of plant diversity, promote the growth of medium-sized predators who put pressure on little creatures, ultimately leading to fewer species (Marris 60).

Pleistocene rewilding, in a nutshell, is setting back the prehumen baseline to over 13,000 years ago, before any species became extinct, due to human interference. However, the problem of already-extinct species arises. To compensate, scientists use “proxies”, similar species that exist today. Marris describes that other scientists have developed a new species, “with the express intent of mimicking the extinct”. The example given is two German brothers who used a number of cattle breeds to create the Heck cattle. Marris writes that the “Heck cattle…are unaware of the history of their kind or the role they are called upon to play in the ecosystem” (59).

Though the theory of rewilding may at first seem like an interesting and optimistic solution, it is quite impractical to me. I understand that many scientists and environmentalists are curious of how nature functioned before human beings, but force-introducing new species to an environment and maintaining it carefully is a very strong example of human interference. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a species will be a good fit in an unfamiliar environment. I understand the theory of using proxies. However, we are all aware that the environment today is very different from how it was 13,000 years ago. There are different surrounding animals and fauna, as well as atmospheric differences. There is no way of telling if the introduced species will die or thrive to an extent as to alter the whole ecosystem.

In the first chapter of the book, Marris says that the reason native species went extinct was because they grew up in isolation. Foreign species were able to adapt to changing conditions better. Therefore, they survived whereas the native species went extinct (6). By introducing proxies that have evolved in other ecosystems, there is no guarantee that they can adapt to the new one. This goes back to having to maintain and watch the species to make sure they don’t die. If this is done, they species will essentially be sheltered and may die if left alone. Marris has stressed a mostly hands-off approach to dealing with nature, as well as looking to the future instead of focusing on the past.

Lastly, Frans Vera, the mind behind the great Oostvaardersplassen, even states, “a natural ecosystem is better than a cultivated one”. This is extremely ironic, as Marris explains, “the whole place [Oostvaardersplassen] is cultivated, man-made, created.” Vera combats by saying that all man created were the conditions and nature did the rest. (70-71). However, I see the introduction of species as altering nature, as well as conditions.

In the many attempts to find a way to preserve and restore habitats and species, conservationists have developed the method of rewilding.  Rewilding is essentially the idea that restoring species to an environment will help balance the population in that area.  If one were to return predators to a specific area, then one would hope that the predators would feed on the prey in that zone and keep the population in check.  If one were to place an endangered species on the other hand, one would hope that the species would repopulate and save itself from complete extinction.

In theory, this is a good idea because we’re simply restoring a piece of the earth to a point in time, where it was able to function and sustain itself.  By returning species and placing extinct species in specific areas, we could end up saving many species.  The act of balancing out an ecosystem is a very strong use of rewilding, however this issue comes when conservationists attempt an extreme form of rewilding.

An issue with extreme rewilding is trying to achieve a “pristine prehumen baseline and restore [the environment] to 13,000 years or more” (57).  First off, due “to many extinctions that have taken place in the last 13,000 years” (58), the possibility of returning to a pristine baseline is eliminated.  It’s impossible to return an ecosystem to an untouched state if the proper species can’t be placed there.  Then, if conservationists attempt to replace the extinct species with live ones, the different habits and diets of the live species could affect the location in negative ways.

Another issue with extreme rewilding is the notion that achieving an agreed upon setting at that time.  For example “ Vera’s project [receives many critics because] ecologists don’t agree that Europe looked like a Savanna 10,000 years ago.  If people can’t agree on the environment at that time, there can be no way of restoring that strip of land back.  Returning a piece of Europe into a Savannah goes beyond rewilding and simply moving species around, it enters a new area of human constructing and rebuilding.  This type of project, while being unbeneficial to society, would also need large amounts of money, which isn’t feasible at this time.

Also, if a piece of land at that time was completely uninhabitable, with the exception of a few species, then there would be no benefit to society in doing so.  Since many species have gone extinct, relatively few would be able to inhabit that area, and with the over population of humans, we don’t have the luxury of setting aside a piece of land only to make it uninhabitable.

Rewilding seems to be a principle only applicable in theory, but not real life.  We can never predict the outcome of moving species around, nor the affects they would have in the long run.  Also, given the low budget for conservation at this time, finding the resources to manage a rewilding project doesn’t seem feasible.  Finally, there’s a chance we might attempt to go beyond rewilding and create even more problems for ourselves.

Emma Marris introduces the concept of “rewilding” in chapter 3 and 4 of her novel “Rambunctious Garden.” This idea of “rewilding” aims for the restoration of the nature to its wild days, when there were no human regulations upon the natural ecosystem. It is another idea derived from many conservationist and ecologists that dreams of pristine nature. Under the idea of “rewilding” extinct animals and organisms will be reintroduced to their old habitat, creating the “natural” food chains and cycles.

Theoretically, “rewilding” seems a good solution to current problems in the ecosystem. However, it is practically impossible and unethical. In the chapters, Marris shows the cheetahs of Arizona and elephants of Missouri as examples (61). Those two animals are clearly dangerous species to humans and it is preposterous to let those species to dwell near the human habitat. There is chance that those animals will escape their protected area and it is certain that wild cheetahs and elephants will harm the people. The ones who agrees with the danger of the species said, “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again.” (69) They are saying since humans wiped out cheetahs and elephants once before, if they create trouble once again, the animals will be wiped out once again. I think this idea is very unethical. Previously, the humans wiped out the cheetahs and elephants for the human greed. Then, the animals are placed in the natural habitat that is not accustomed for the animal’s survival for human’s greed. Later on, when they cause any trouble, once again, the animals are wiped out for human greed. The ecologists are trying to create “wilderness” due to human’s greed as they treat the animals unethicallyMy question is whether or not “rewilding” is intended for the sake of nature and animals or for the humans that feel bad for destroying the nature?

Moreover, the idea of “rewilding” is clearly impossible. First of all, the nature has evolved after much extinction of animals and organisms. How can the scientists measure and figure out the current nature with the extinct animals? Life and death is natural cycle and the ecosystem learns how to accustom to the absence of certain animals and organisms. Against the idea of “rewilding,” Marris argues, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created.” (70) The human existed in natural ecosystem for thousands of years. There is no way to predict the “wilderness” 10,000 years ago. Also, there may be natural disasters or climate changes that humans do not know about they could’ve altered the natural ecosystem in pre-human, or even in pro-human era.

Yes, having the most pristine nature sounds tempting. However, why waste time and money that is clearly unknown, unethical, and impossible? It is better to focus on what the nature has right now and learn how to preserve it. It is important to fix the mistakes the humans had done to the nature but it is after when we learn to preserve current nature so it won’t become any worse.

In chapters 3 and 4 of the Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces a new concept called rewilding, in which scientists and conservationists attempt to recreate an ecosystem that predated human arrival by bringing native species back to their original ecosystem. However, further research suggests that humans are not solely responsible for the extinction of the “megafauna” or large animals that inhabited North America (Marris 44). As a result, scientists and conservationists introduced “Pleistocene Rewilding,” which refers to a baseline about 13,000 years ago (Marris 57). Ultimately, this baseline is deemed to be a more accurate indicator of how the land was before it was reshaped by humans and nature. Analyzing North America before the “megafauna” is a better approach because research shows that humans are not the only ones responsible for changing the land. In fact this claim is shown to be outdated, but using the Pleistocene era as a reference will provide scientists and conservationists with a better picture of the ecosystem. By researching the species that thrived on the land, scientists can then make inferences about the landscape and how it has changed over the past 13,000 years.

However, since these species have been extinct thousands of years ago, scientists and conservationists needed to use other similar species as “proxies” to determine how the ecosystem was during this era (61). The “proxies” are species that bare resemblance to the “megafauna” But this is controversial because it authorizes conservationists to move nonnative species out of the land and bring in the “native species.” Field ecologist, Josh Donlan, who worked closely with the scientists and conservationists behind “Nature,” an outlined plan for “Pleistocene Rewilding,” has actively been removing nonnative species (62). In fact, Donlan recalls working in Mexico’s Gulf of California, but because he was not able to remove all the cats on the island, the native wood-rat species went extinct. In this example, it is clear that rewilding is important to keep native species from going extinct.However, it still leaves the question of whether or not it is okay to remove a species from its habitat and put it in a new ecosystem that its ancestors have lived in thousands of years ago.

 Moreover, rewilding still enforces the barrier between humans and nature; Donlan mentions that when bringing native species back to North America they will be separate from human civilization. For some, this contradicts the idea of a “pristine nature.” A prime example of this is the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, which was designed to showcase “pristine nature” however, Marris argues that is “far from pristine” because the species are living on a plot of land surronded by Civilization (70). These animals cannot roam wildly because of the Oostvaardersplassen’s proximity to people.

Even though it is important for conservationists to prevent the extinction of native species, it is also difficult to determine whether or not removing a species from its habitat and putting it in a new ecosystem will do more harm or good. Given the lack of scientific information about the Pleistocene era, scientists have to rely upon a “few long-term ecological studies” (62). This will take scientists a lot of time to analyze and compile conclusions. Rewilding is scientifically feasible but because rewilding is a new concept, the only way for scientists to conclude whether or not the concept is the best approach is to conduct long-term research on the species in their new ecosystems.

“Rewilding” essentially is taking animals, namely “top-of-the-food-chain” predators, that once inhabited certain ecosystems, moving those animals back to that ecosystem, and hoping that those animals can restore balance to said ecosystems and bring it back to a “pristine” state. Another aspect of “rewilding” is introducing endangered species to ideal habitats around the world in hopes that they will reproduce. The concept of “Rewilding” has garnered much support from eco-pundits in the scientific community and the general public alike. According to the text, many scientists believe that the survival of large predators specifically is imperative to the survival of certain habitats. The large predators keep the smaller predators in line, quite simply by eating them. This, in turn, keeps the population of the smaller predators at bay, leaving more green grass and plants to thrive in those areas.
Now, at first glance, the idea of “rewilding” seems quite plausible. However, scientists are presented with quite a few problems. A number of the animals that once inhabited certain ecosystems, are currently extinct. So scientists need to take species similar to those that once lived in that ecosystem and place them there. Scientists are also unsure of what the Earth was actually like before humans arrived. And without a doubt, the Earth’s current state is nothing like what it used to be. Introducing species to foreign areas could certainly not turn out the way scientists expect it too; as evident in the example of cheetahs in Arizon and elephants in Missouri presented by Maris. Simply assuming that any animal can survive and thrive in any habitat does not solve any problem. Nature is unpredictable; no one knows what could potentially happen by introducing species to an ecosystem. In my opinion, trying to enhance an ecosystem by isolating animals from humans, is not the way to go. It defeats the whole purpose of trying to restore the area to its pristine state. Several more questions can be asked when discussing the idea of “rewilding.” Is it ethical? How much manpower is needed? How much will it cost? Well, is it ethical…many would call “rewilding” unethical seeing as humans are the puppet master in this grand puppet show. Humans essentially choose which species survive, and which species can die (PETA would be heartbroken). Several quotes in Chapter 4 address some pressing concerns associated with this theory; with ecologist Josh Donlan saying “we can kill ’em again.” In conclusion, “rewilding” seems like it could solve a variety of problems that have tortured scientists for decades; however, not without sacrifice on the part of living animals.

Rewilding paves a new path in preserving nature. In rewilding, animals are introduced to the wild life in America. These animals are taken based on their ancestry or their habits. The point of bringing these animals into America’s wild life is to bring that area back to the baseline of a time before many animal became extinct–a time “before people came to North America.” The organisms are chosen to substitute for animals believed to have been there many years ago but are now lost to the ecosystem of the area. Although rewilding is a way to help rebuild nature, it seems a bit unethical.

Capturing organisms from different countries and bringing them to the United States in hopes of reestablishing the wildlife appears selfish on America’s part. We neglect to consider the consequences of taking these organisms from other countries. Will the animals’ population in its native country decline? Also, just grabbing animals to substitute organisms that used to live in certain ecosystems is inconsiderate of the animal as it will be separated from its family. Even so, this sacrifice is not much compared to how much these animals will help rebuild nature in North America.

Whether rewilding is successful or not is uncertain. Donlan is testing out rewilding with herbivores first to see if they will adapt to the environment and work as he predicted-replacements of animals once living there. For example, he brought Bolson tortoises to the Turner Ranch to take on the role of tortoises that used to live in New Mexico. He chose to start with tortoises because they will not be as harmful to the environment as other animals and can be easily taken away if they turn into invasive species. So, if rewilding does turn out well with the tortoises, that does not mean the same will happen for other animals. There is still a chance that other species will become invasive species in the new environment they are placed in, thus doing more harm than good. Also, there is also concern over species being dangerous and posing as a threat to humans. For example, if cheetahs were let out into the wild, will they escape into human society and attack humans? There are many questions and concerns about rewilding and for them to be answered, it must be tested out. From what is said in Marris’ observation, rewilding seems to be quite resourceful. It is a natural way of saving the environment, unlike conservationists rebuilding the environment themselves by burning forests down and replanting trees.

I think that rewilding would be the better option in saving nature. It allows for a natural ecosystem to occur and to rebuild America’s wildlife. The concept of rewilding does not attempt to start all over from the beginning. It attempts to shape the environment back to the beginning before humans came in contact with North America. Shaping the environment involves less handiwork from humans and less damage to the environment as well. This is because rebuilding nature from the beginning involves more death than shaping nature. This is why I believe rewilding is a better option.

In chapters three and four of Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris, the concept of rewilding is extensively discussed. Rewilding is the process of reintroducing species to a particular ecosystem that they inhabited once before. The idea includes reintroducing predators to an area so they can regulate the food chain and maintain a diverse gene pool. Rewilding also involves relocating endangered species to ideal habitats to prevent extinction. Some proponents of rewilding support adding proxy species to certain ecosystems. These proxy species are close substitutes to extinct organisms that once lived in these ecosystems. People who support this view believe the proxy species will have the same effect on the ecosystems as their ancestors did. Another type of rewilding is Pleistocene rewilding. This type of rewilding was first proposed by Paul Martin and involves returning wilderness to the state it was in before any humans arrived. Martin goes as far as proposing to introduce proxy species of elephants, lions, and cheetahs to the reserves in the Great Plains to restore the ecosystems that once existed there. Of course, these views have been heavily criticized.

In my opinion, rewilding has many benefits, but it also can cause many problems. The problem with rewilding is that it is based on ideals. These ideals are uncertain to come to fruition in reality. For example, it is not definite that proxy species will interact with a certain ecosystem in the same way that their ancestors did. In fact, the proxy species might have adverse effects on the ecosystem. Rewilding is a relatively new concept that has only been tested on a small-scale. Although it has been effective in places such as Oostvardersplassen in the Netherlands, I do not know if it will be effective at a large-scale level. In order for it to be effective at a larger scale, it will require a tremendous amount of time, money, and regulation.

Another problem with rewilding is that it poses some safety issues. For example, if predators such as lions and cheetahs are introduced to reserves in the Great Plains, they can escape and terrorize Americans in the area. The goal of rewilding is to restore ecosystems to the way they were thousands of years ago. Unlike the pristine wilderness concept, which unsuccessfully tries to find land that has been untouched, rewilding allows people to create ecosystems that resemble the distant past. However, since species that have dominated the land have evolved to cope with the ecosystems they are currently a part of, rewilding might have adverse and unexpected effects. Therefore, it is not a good idea. I believe the only time rewilding should be utilized is when dealing with endangered species. If rewilding can help an endangered species prosper, then it will be beneficial. For example, it might be beneficial to relocate a species of endangered birds to an ecosystem that the ancestors of that species once inhabited if this will benefit the species.

Although rewilding is scientifically feasible, it would require an incredible amount of time, money, and regulation. Even if it is feasible, it is not certain to have the desired effects. Regardless, I do not believe that rewilding is ethically sound in most circumstances. Relocating species such as African lions, cheetahs, and elephants to foreign lands such as the Great Plains can harm the species. This is because they have adapted to life in Africa and their adaptations might not be well suited for foreign lands. Relocating these species to lands such as the Great Plains is also unethical to Americans in the surrounding areas because these wild animals can pose a threat to their livelihood. The only instance where I believe that rewilding is ethical is if it will benefit an endangered species that does not pose a serious threat to humans. It is quite clear from these chapters that rewilding is an interesting yet controversial concept.

According to Marris, rewilding is essentially returning an area back to the state it would be in today if there were no humans. Although the intentions of rewilding are good, the idea of undoing the changed that humans have caused, the reality of creating such an environment is impossible and unrealistic, not to mention contradictory and unethical.

Firstly, creating recreating ecosystems that existed before humans existed in many cases is completely impossible. Since thousands of years have passed, the species that once existed during the Pleistocene may have evolved. If a species has been exposed to a different environment, they may have changed the way they behave. Though the species is the same as the past, its role and the way it interacts with the environment may have changed. Another common problem is that many of the animals that existed during the Pleistocene have since then become extinct. In order to overcome this, ecologists might introduce a similar species that would play the same role as that of the extinct species in the ecosystem. For example, introducing “Bactrian camels (from the Gobi Desert)” to America to replace the wild horses and camels that used to exist here (Marris 63). No matter how hard humans try, some ecosystems can never be replicated exactly, just approximately. Reintroducing animals also leads to many shifts in the ecosystem. According to field ecologist Josh Donlan, after the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, “not six month goes by without a new groundbreaking paper… linking some unexpected ecosystem shift” (Marris 62). It is clear that bringing in a single species can drastically alter an ecosystem since the ecosystem would adjust to accommodate the changes. Changes to the ecosystem would also affect humans since the rewilded animals need to be separated from humans and managed carefully. In some areas, towns and farms would need to think about putting up fences to protect themselves from the new large beasts. Though these changes are not impossible, they create great difficulties for humans and could potentially create a great threat if they were not carried out. Recreating ecosystems from the past prove to be troublesome, difficult and scientifically impossible due to the state the world is today.

Rewilding aims to take away human interference with the environment, but by actively taking a hand in recreating environments, rewilding actually does the complete opposite of its purpose. Rewilding is self-contradictory and unethical. One of the criticisms of rewilding that Donlan points out is the idea of “playing god” (Marris 65). Although both introducing and removing species may be considered “playing god,” actually having to ship in animals to different ecosystems altering the ecosystem in a different way. Nature will always readjust itself to the given conditions, but since human effort is needed to maintain such an environment, it is no less natural than its current state. An artificially created environment, no matter how realistic it is, is no substitute for the real thing. The intentions of the ecologists are admirable, but completely misguided.

On the surface, rewilding sounds like a fantastic idea. Through rewilding, ecologists can study a natural environment free from human interactions. They can also examine how different species interact before the arrival of humans. However, rewilding is not very feasible and it is quite unethical.

According to Dave Foreman, the concept of rewilding comes directly from the food chain of the ecosystems. At the top of the food chain, the predators regulate the population of the other species. If there are fewer predators, the population of the other species decreases. This results into an overpopulation of some species and an extinction of other species. Marris summarizes this by saying that the ecosystem will end up with “fewer species” (60). By reintroducing species into an environment, ecologists hope to restore “evolutionary and ecological potential to populations of large animals… and to inspire people to support nature conservation” (62). It would also prevent the extinction of certain species.

The main problem with rewilding is that it is almost impossible to replicate nature into an environment that existed thousands of years ago.  Dustin Rubenstein points out that “placing proxy animals in a modern landscape could spell trouble” (65). These animals could generate unpredictable results and it could lead to an environment far from the past natural landscape. Furthermore, humans already touched this land thousands of years ago. In Chapter 3, Marris states that many people do not include the early humans because they are not considered “civilized.” However, Marris argues that “first people might have made greater changes to the landscape than the European arrivals ever did” (43). In fact, many large animals died because of the hunters from these early humans. Recreating a landscape with these large animals without the human hunters is arguably not a faithful representation of the environment in the past. Since we cannot recreate this environment, we are essentially observing a completely new environment.

In addition, rewilding is not very ethical. Despite what Donlan said, we are basically playing god since we can pick and choose which species can live and which species can die. In this case, we are basically picking and moving those species that we are interested in studying. Once the species are moved into the new environment, we give the species what it needs to survive. In addition, we can kill off an animal if we want to. In Chapter 4, Vera “called one of the reserve’s staff members to come and shoot [an abandoned calf].” Apparently, “[letting] an animal starve to death is too cruel to be allowed, even in the name of nature” (66). The fact that humans can control life and death of different species through rewilding makes it quite unethical.

Even though humans can create a landscape that looks “natural” to many people, it is not necessarily an ideal environment for studying the past. As Marris points out, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created” (70). The fact that it is man-made reinforces the idea that there is no baseline or pristine wilderness. Instead of recreating the past, these ecologists should just focus on the environment of the future. We can start by building a relationship between human and nature instead of separating it.

Rambunctious Garden, written by Emma Marris, opens up with tales of conservation methods in Australia.  In Chapter 2, Marris goes on to describe the Yellowstone Model.  Marris is quick to assert her point that using baselines for conservation may not be the best, or even damaging, to the ecosystem.  The author defines a baseline as a point in time at which conservationists aim to restore the land to “pristine wilderness.”  It is most often pre-European.  Instead, she says that ecosystems are constantly changing, and human efforts to preserve these lands should reflect that, instead of restoring them to an anachronistic time.

In Australia, conservationists have attempted to restore lands to pre-European times.  The Australian Wildlife Conservancy, in 2009, tried to restore a 250 square mile piece of land, Scotia Sanctuary, to pre-European times. This project was arduous and expensive.  The Australian plan faired well because it required killing feral animals like goats, foxes, cats, and rabbits.  The hunters shot the goats, trapped the foxes and cats, and poisoned carrots to rid the rabbits.  That is quite an extreme example (that PETA would dislike), but it worked in the sense that the “little furries” were now under no threat.  Native species thrived.    Therefore, Scotia Sanctuary proved that achieving a historical baseline was possible, under intense management.  But what does “management” entail?  Is this land no longer wild if it is “managed?” Maybe.  Is this land no longer “pristine wilderness” because of human intervention?  Not quite.  Let’s look at America’s answer to the quest for pristine wilderness.

The Yellowstone Model serves as a guide to the world of what conservation is today: setting aside wilderness areas and banning human use apart from tourism.  Never before had a society voluntarily restrained itself using natural resources in deference to higher uses of nature such as pure enjoyment (Marris).  Now 13% of the Earth’s lands are protected areas.  Is this necessarily right though?  In 1877, Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands. This is very ironic because it was the care of the Native Americans that first interested the conservationists in the land.  Needless to say, the ecosystem suffered without its caretakers.  I think Marris will use Yellowstone of what the face of conservation used to be.  Sure, having this great area of “untouched” space is great but is it really productive?  Does it really suit to the needs of the land and the people?  She compares it a bit to the European model of aiding human use and avoiding extinction.  Americans perfected this model of nothingness, leaving the land as it is, and exported that to the world.  Both ideas are being debated here.

Emma Marris presents excellent cases so far.  Australia’s model of returning to the baseline proved successful.  Wyoming’s Yellowstone has also seen success.  Both attempt to move their respected lands into “prestine wilderness,” Yellowstone with no activity whatsoever, and Scotia Sanctuary with human intervention.  I am inclined to think that Marris believes in the latter.

In Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris introduces the idea that today’s understanding of conserving nature is flawed and backwards. Importantly, Marris asserts that nature it is not pristine and simple, and it is not constant and static. It is constantly changing—whether it occurs naturally or artificially. Instead of having a “pristine wilderness” concept, Marris suggests a vision of a “rambunctious wilderness” should be taken on to coincide with human activities and actions, not against it.

In the first chapter, Marris criticizes human efforts of attempting to restore nature to a state in its past. Trying to repair an ecosystem’s damage from invasive species, destroyed plant life, and altered climate or territorial natural states, cannot magically bring back nature from the past. Although this type of restoration sounds extremely optimistic, it is not realistic. For example, since more than fifty percent of Hawaii’s plants are nonnative, an experiment of ridding a specific forest of all nonnative species took place to see if native species would be reintroduced naturally. It was discovered that only a few native seedlings reappeared on the forest floor and there were no drastic, laudable changes.  These efforts also have complications in documenting about the point of restoration, as well as the requirement of much time and money. In the second chapter, Marris continues with “The Yellowstone Model” to reason the impossibility of perfect restoration. Since nature is constantly changing, a “stable equilibrium” that societies want to conserve simply does not exist.

Marris also makes a significant point about the misconception of keeping nature separate from humankind. The human species has had an impact or influence in every ecosystem on the Earth, already! Nature includes “the bees whizzing down Fifth Avenue”—it is around us and within our reach. It does not make sense to conserve nature by removing, sometimes forcibly, humans living on the land that ‘must be conserved’. On the contrary, Marris actually suggests, “achieving coexistence between humans and other species” to avoid the removal of indigenous peoples and to allow the environment to thrive more. Instead of seeing nature as something untouchable in the distance, people should start seeing the beauty of nature that can coexist with humanity.

Marris succeeds in educating her readers of the importance of embracing nature as it is, while asserting the false perceptions of “restoration” and “conservation” that most of society has today. Throughout, her general use of examples expresses a dedication to research and for finding alternative, and maybe even more effective, solutions to society’s current problem with nature—which allows readers to take her seriously and even with a new perspective.

The main idea of the author seems to be that although conservation is not necessarily futile depending on its goals, if its goal is to keep a place the same as it was years ago that is vain and so is our view on nature. The author lists two ways in which nature has been lost. One is through man. An example would be deforestation. Another is what she calls “misplaced” nature.

Our perception of nature is far away, not in the cities, with no people and untouched by mankind. The author points out that nature is everywhere, even in cities such as birds in backyard. Even if not pristine as we view nature, it can still be viewed as such. After all, there is no going back to when nature is considered pristine. The author points out changes happen to nature all the time.

She understands that changing our ideas is hard. The methodology she described as how conservationists go about preserving an area. There are baselines that are the goals, the ecosystem that conservationists want to obtain. According to our nature ethics, it is to go before human touch. Problems that arise though are ecosystems are complicated to figure out. Ecosystems are always changing with or without humans. Although a baseline is created, we don’t always know how the ecosystem looked back then. Most important of all, these goals are almost impossible to achieve unless decides to put in large amounts of money into it and everywhere makes it their priority. I agree with the author when she says it is almost impossible to obtain this.

Even though parks and reserves can be worth having like Yellowstone Park and the reserves in Scotia and Australia, nature is always changing. There are new ways to embrace nature. When the grad student saw the ecosystem in Hawaii, he wasn’t like the other ecologists who believe that it is something to scoff at. They can still have benefits and the ways they interact with each other are unique and interesting as those before. As she says these ecosystems are the ones driving the earth, not the ones of the past.

Even though human touch is thought to be bad, parks with fertile land had people there. The reason nature was there however was the people living there were doing the least harm.

I believe she makes a good case of her main point. People want a stable equilibrium in the ecosystems but it almost impossible. Ecologists know that change is the norm of ecosystems. Some changes in forests aren’t even the work of human. Sometimes it is the work of nature such as the Ice Age. Ecosystems aren’t static.

Even if an ecologist knows nature is always changing, he will try to establish a balance of nature policy. They always change. Even park managers admit so and hope that the system will be resilient. Even knowing change is happening, manmade change is still held to be bad. Searching for the untouched is vain in searching the unchanging. I am one of those people, too. Even if I know nature always changes, having our influence on nature makes me feel conflicted as to what should be done. Even if nature always changes, we can’t help but feel responsible for those changes. I see her point but saying preservation is vain feels off to me.

Emma Marris, in the first two chapters of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, expresses her opposing view to the common traditions of conservationism that aim to maintain a “pristine wilderness” (2). The first chapter, “Weeding the Jungle,” mainly criticizes the practice of restoring nature to a state of its past. For years conservationists have rid ecosystems of invasive species, reintroduced native species, constructed elements that were once present, and created habitats in an attempt to bring back original qualities from the designated point in time. Although the outcome sounds tempting, such an achievement is practically impossible for several reasons. Firstly, the example of Hawaii that Marris described did not produce particularly spectacular results. Secondly, there is usually very little documentation about the point of restoration so there is no way to know how successful the project was anyway. Thirdly, executing these restorations consumes a great amount of time and money that the world simply does not have to contribute to the cause.

The reasoning behind the impossibility is further explained in the second chapter, “The Yellowstone Model,” which is mostly about how nature is forever changing. According to paleoecologist Feng Shung Hu, the stable equilibrium to which conservationists desire to return Earth’s ecosystems simply does not exist (Marris). The second chapter also discusses conservationists’ view of human interaction with nature. A significant point Marris repeatedly points out is that humankind has interfered with every piece of nature that exists on the planet. Even so, for a long time conservationists have seemed to believe that the best way to approach nature is to separate it from people altogether. It has been determined that in doing so, the United States would be “a white continent flecked with green here and there” (37).  Furthermore, native people have been forced out of their homes so that the parks could be created and kept untouched. As for this practice, Marris argues for the exact opposite: “achieving coexistence between humans and other species” (32), which would allow for more nature to thrive and prevent the removal of indigenous peoples. In other words, she advocates for a ‘rambunctious garden’ – nature that is created and maintained by humankind.

Overall, Marris has developed a powerful argument. The conservation traditions that she rivals are widely known and accepted. However, she manages to bring to the table a different perspective – the ‘rambunctious garden’ – on conservation that has been previously addressed by few but never fully recognized. Challenging such broadly established practices is a difficult task, but she does it extremely well. Throughout the two chapters, Marris provides clear and strong support for her arguments. Offering plenty of examples, she proves that she is not just complaining about the failure of various conservation tactics and creating surreal solutions, but that she has researched those failures and thoughtfully crafted alternative solutions. If the rest of the book continues with a similar format of eye-opening opinions and substantial evidence backing change, by the end of it Marris’s arguments will have definitely influenced my outlook on conservation.

In the first two chapter of the book Rambunctious Garden, Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris addresses issues about nature. According to Marris, we have lost nature in the sense of how it has been destroyed, and also how we have misplaced it. Marris makes a clear argument in the beginning of the first chapter about the common misconception of how people view nature. I agree with her that when people think about nature, things that come to most of their minds are forest, wild animals, and plants. Natures shouldn’t be something that is “out there”, somewhere far away from human touch; instead it can be in everywhere around us. In Marris’ words, “Nature is also the birds in your backyard; the bees whizzing down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan; the pines in rows in forest plantations the blackberries and butterfly bushes that grow alongside the urban river…”(Marris, 6) She suggests that nature is not only about those national parks such as Yellowstone, it can be anything that’s around us.

Marris also makes a strong argument that “Nature is almost everywhere. But wherever it is, there is one thing that nature is not: pristine”(Marris, 6). We are living in a planet that is constantly changing; for example, carbon level keep increasing, many species were moving from one place to another, and there is also a huge climate change. All these changes were closely related to human’s actions, in which high carbon level and climate changes are results of burning fossil fuels. Because of the significant impact that human can have on the nature, people must be responsible of their actions, and start looking at nature in a different prospective. Marris makes a forceful statement saying “we can find beauty in nature, even if signs of humanity are present.” I truly agree with this quote, because of our undeniable influences on nature, human is actually a part of the nature, which cannot be separated. Keeping nature away from human is not the most efficient way of reserving nature. Many conservationists are trying to restore nature into a state before any presences of human. However, it is very difficult for conservationists to achieve this goal, and sometimes they even have problem decide what their baselines are, because nature is constantly changing, and we don’t always know what these places were like thousands of years ago. We cannot restore everything to its original fate; therefore, we ended up having “little islands like the past” (Marris 16)

Marris also gives an example of Yellowstone to argue that nature shouldn’t be keep away from people. Millions of indigenous people have been moved just to protect nature, but Marris believes that this is not the effective way of saving our nature because natures and human are closely tied with each other. According Marris, these indigenous people can be the one who is doing least hurt to the nature that they live with. I think Marris did a good job in the opening of the book; she has made several strong arguments about nature with the support of examples.

From the first two chapters of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, it is apparent that the main point she wants to convey is that the goals of conventional ecologists are flawed and outdated ways of approaching conservation. She is explaining her thoughts on how science’s and the public’s romantic stance on nature being simple, pristine, and unaltered, should not be the basis for modern day conservation. The ideal vision of a pristine wilderness should be put behind us to allow for a more rambunctious wilderness to grow in conjunction with human intervention(hence the term garden).

Chapter one establishes the idea of a baseline that many ecologists and conservationists strive for when protecting a land. Marris deconstructs the idea of a baseline throughout the two chapters to allow the readers to see that the world and nature is not stagnant or unchanging. The baseline that most ecologists strive for is one that is unaltered by people, or has most of its native species intact. Marris makes it clear that a pristine wilderness is simply unrealistic, which is a point that I can agree on. She says that, “the ecosystems that look the most pristine are perhaps the least likely to be truly wild.” If a baseline were to be achieved, constant human intervention, like at the Australian Scotia Sanctuary, would be necessary to keep the lands in a “pristine” state. Aside from the costs of maintaining pristine wilderness, the fact that humans are needed to tend to these protected lands weakens the pristine aspect of mother nature.

These “romantic” ecologists tend to believe that an unchanging nature is how nature was aways supposed to be. They believe that a “balance of nature” or equilibrium in an ecosystem is the ending point for any stable ecosystem. However, most ecosystems never hold still. There is no point where nature is always in in equilibrium, so the romantic nature that we try to recreate is an unreasonable idea. Marris brings to our attention that change is unavoidable, thus we should take advantage of nature’s characteristic to be wild and rambunctious. Marris mentions that, currently, many conservation park managers are looking towards the idea of “resilience” in their ecosystems. This is the idea that ecosystems are strong enough to gradually change on their own, and are not unstable to the point that several species are threatened. If an ecosystem does reach a point of instability, human intervention is welcomed.

I find that Marris’ case to be compelling, but I also feel that she does not give enough credit to the current conservation/protection of ecosystems. While the idea of allowing a rambunctious garden/world to grow is charming, protecting special lands and endangered species are still issues that have to be addressed. There should be a balance between protecting lands, maintaining unstable ecosystems (ecosystems where some species are threatened), and allowing for nature to take its course.

In her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Emma Marris presents a new way of viewing nature. In her eyes nature is not limited to untouched ecosystems, but instead, it is everywhere. Marris rejects the conservationist approach of fencing off nature in hopes of preserving or attaining the pristine. Instead, she supports the idea that nature is in constant flux and consequently, proposes the cultivation of wild gardens alongside human development.

According to Marris, the typical conservationist fruitlessly aims for a retreat to the baseline, before human actions induced negative changes on the ecosystem. Using Hawaii as an example, she proved that restoring an ecosystem to its prehuman baseline is almost impossible.  Human activity on the planet has altered temperature, landscape, and even the air composition. Hence, when experimenting on the possibility to reverting Hawaii’s Big Island to its native tree species, Marris found that the results were discouraging. In addition, she noted that the cost burden of getting rid of invasive species, repopulating the ecosystem with its native trees, and maintaining the baseline conditions would be too expensive for any government to bear. As a result, Marris does a good job of affirming her point that returning to the baseline is not a feasible approach to conservation.

Likewise, Marris also makes a good case for approaching nature by looking to the future, where gardens sprout amidst the destructive human hand. She states that there is no scientific reason for believing that the baseline nature is better than the nature of today. In fact, she supports the idea that ecosystems have always been subject to change. Meaning, there is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that nature will be stable or static if reverted to its pristine state. As a result, Marris claims that we are better off focusing on the future ecosystems that will be most responsible for driving the Earth’s natural processes. Hence, the search for the pristine should be replaced with a desire to cultivate the “gardens” in our own backyard. In other words, Marris believes that we need to foster a new thought, where nature is embraced as being everywhere. Through this idea, we can begin the process of creating rambunctious gardens that encourage humans and nature to interact, grow, and coexist.

Overall, Marris made a good case for leaving behind the ideals of a pristine ecosystem to focus on a future where nature is conceived as being almost omnipresent. Her ideas have a clear logical progression that supports the incorporation of both the human hand and wild nature.

Through the first two chapters of Rambunctious Garden, by Emma Marris, the main point being stressed is that the reader and society as a whole must rethink the way we conserve nature. She describes rambunctious gardening as “Proactive and optimistic; it creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left.” People are often worried about protecting the nature we have left, but they fail to realize that a greater impact can be made if we let nature take its coarse and not build fences around it.

More than half of Hawaii’s plants are nonnative. An experiment took place to determine whether a native Hawaiian forest would bounce back if all the introduced species were removed. The results that Marris discovered were that quite a few native seedlings appeared on the forest floor. Marris realized that despite not being able to turn back the clock, many conservation projects like to recreate a former time of the native land on a larger scale. Examples of this would be know as little islands like the past.

The past ten years, according to Marris, scientists have moved beyond focusing on the past, but now focus on the future and asking themselves what they would like it to look like. “No single goal will provide for a sensible, well-rounded conservation program…Layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future, rather than the past, is the cutting edge of conservation.”

Marris goes on to talk about the Yellow Stone National Park effort to preserve the area. About 13% of Earths land is protected area. Initially, most early parks preserved land that could bring tourists, but later after the 1940s, land such as the less sexy swamps that were rare in ecosystem were finally being preserved. To sum up the first two chapters by Marris, she tells us that part of the beauty of ecology is its change.

I agree with many of the strong points that Marris made against the current ways of conservation. Her idea that people are making nature conservation just for the sake of preserving nature alone is a strong one. She supports it by saying that we as humans should accept that we have modified nature and should preserve it the way it is, not by trying to reinvent the past. Nature has its ways of balancing things out and as humans we should help it through the process instead of providing it with barriers. The key to all of this is to embrace nature, and since ecosystems never hold still, we should value the history that is taking place right in front of our eyes.

The main point Emma Marris, author of Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, is trying to get across in her book is represented in one of the lines from the opening chapter: “This book is about new ways of seeing nature.” Marris tries to point out the flawed way many ecologists and conservationalists see nature and try to preserve it, and how due to the changing definition of nature, there must be new ways to study and take care of it. Marris has made a very good case in the first two chapters of her book, explaining the dynamics or nature and bringing many examples of her experiences studying the ecology of many places, including Hawaii, Australia, and Yellowstone Park.

Marris argues that nature must be viewed and understood correctly in order run it correctly. Her main argument is that people must admit that we are running the world in order to run it “consciously and effectively.” Marris provides many examples of how people are running nature because of the ways nature is lost to us and how people have brought about so many changes in nature. She explains that nature is lost in two ways, it is destroyed and we “have hidden nature from ourselves.” People often believe nature is “out there” somewhere but not accessible or near to us. Marris makes a good case talking about the everyday aspects of nature and how it is “almost everywhere.” She mentions nature is in the commonly thought of places such as in the forests but it is also found as well in the cities, where plants still grow and bees still pollinate. Focus on preserving nature is placed onto natural parks but because nature can be found everywhere, Marris argues there should also be a larger focus on the everyday nature found around people, whether it be in a large city or rural area.

Conservationalists are “desperately trying to stop the wilderness from changing” yet as Marris points out, “there is no pristine wilderness on planet earth.” People have been changing the landscape for many years on a global scale with things such as “climate change, species movements, and large-scale transformations of land.” Marris provides many examples of the way nature is adapting such as how “bobcat families [are] moving into foreclosed suburban homes.” Because nature is constantly changing, “whether humans are involved or not,” there are many problems with the common practice by ecologists of setting a baseline when studying an area. A baseline is used to compare the current ecological state of an area to a certain period of time, but many factors affect the validity of such measurements.

Marris’ main point of the book seems to resonate in one of her quotes, “we can find beauty in nature, even if signs of humanity are present.” Marris disagrees with the the static way ecologists are trying to preserve what they consider as the only nature worth preserving, and argues that nature is all around us and effected by us, so it should be studied with that in mind.

In Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris tries to point our mistakes about looking towards nature from an idealistic point of view- that it exists untouched and pristine in a distant corner. Author Marris also points out that the traditionally held point of views about conservation must also be modified because nature not only exists in national parks, boreal forests and the Arctic, but also in backyards, forrest plantations and even city blocks.According to Marris, we must abandon our romanticized notion of pristine wilderness and take on the responsibility of tending a new garden of nature, which is everywhere. We must move on from the deeply held views of “pristine wilderness” as the ideal for every landscape, and adopt a new standard which is as dynamic as the changing ecosystems themselves.

Despite human presence, ecosystems are always changing due to several factors, therefore Marris in the first chapter points out the difficulty in setting an appropriate baseline for establishing a time period- where nature is pristine and untouched. Furthermore, in terms of time and money the procedure often proves to be rather difficult and impractical.

It is clear that most ecosystems or wildernesses have been misplaced, but still several conversationalists strongly adhere to the idea of creating restoration parks that aim to recreate a former time- for instance Cathcart’s efforts in Australia, where non-native species are being eradicated and “pristine wilderness” is being kept in fences.

According to Marris, there is a distinction between preventing extinction and trying to recreate a former system. It may not be feasible to return to the past, but preventing extinction certainly possible and does not require perpetual weeding.

A new view of conservation needs to be established, and the future must be embraced rather than abandoned in an effort to bring back the past. Just because an ecosystem has changed, it doesn’t make it worthless. They still drive the natural processes and help with problems such as climate change.

No one approach to the conservation efforts is adequate, what is important- to layer goals and manage landscapes with an eye for the future, rather than the past. The whole notion of preserving what is native and pristine is a misconception which is deeply rooted into the fields of ecology and must be modified.

I strongly agree with Marris’ point of views- Just because a specie is non-native, and fits perfectly well into an ecosystem does not make it any different. It helps achieve the overall goals and contributes to the landscape.  Furthermore, in the current world wilderness in its pristine and romanticized form can only be kept in controlled zoo-like environments, so is it truly wilderness if its kept tamed? And is justified to eradicate a specie because it doesn’t originally belong to that landscape? Marris makes excellent points and questions are deeply rooted views about conservation, wilderness and ecology.

Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris seems to be a very thought-provoking book. Throughout the first two chapters, Marris explains her views on the current state of ecology. First, Marris makes it clear that in today’s day and age there is no such thing as “pristine wilderness.” She explains that no ecological habitats have been uninfluenced by humans since prehistoric times. Next, Marris attacks the attempts of many conservationists to return specific habitats to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris attacks the Yellowstone Model and elaborates on the difficulty and costliness of achieving this goal. Finally, Marris argues against the “balance of nature view,” which states that nature does not change on its own very much, but instead remains at a stable equilibrium. Marris retorts that chaos is more common than stability in most ecosystems and that natural events such as fires and climatic changes are constantly changing habitats all over the world.

It seems clear from these two chapters that Marris’s main point is that there is beauty in the new ecosystems that are being created today. Although some conservationists may argue that ecosystems in places such as New York City are impure, Marris believes that native ecosystems are not any better than these new “synthetic” ecosystems. Marris finds beauty in this new nature in which nonnative species interact with native ones. In fact, she believes that these new “synthetic” ecosystems are just as beautiful as natural ecosystems untouched by humans. Marris argues that “the changes, the disturbance, the outlying events, and the confounding factors are often the most important drivers of the system” (34). This quote exemplifies her belief that conservationists must stray away from trying to return ecosystems to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris is a realist and understands that in the highly advanced societies of today it is impossible to eliminate the effects of humans on natural ecosystems. She recognizes that it is inevitable that humans will affect nature. This is demonstrated when she states that “we must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness and find room next to it for the more nuanced notion of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden, tended by us” (2). Just like Kareiva et al in “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” Marris believes that coexistence should be achieved between humans and wilderness.

Marris has made a good case for her point throughout these two chapters. First, she points out the costliness and difficulty of maintaining preserved areas. For example, she writes that it took nearly six years to kill the nonnative species in The Australian Wildlife Conservancy. Also, she illuminates the fact that millions of people have been forced to resettle due to preservation. Finally, she argues that maintaining preservations is nearly impossible due to the extreme amount of money and manpower required.

I agree with Marris’s view on the current state of ecology. I think we need to establish some sort of coexistence between humans and wilderness. This is because the effects that humans have on every ecosystem are impossible to deny. As industrialization continues to increase, ecosystems will continue to be affected. However, humans cannot halt advancement for the benefit of nature. A balance needs to be established between nature and wilderness. We must accept these new “synthetic” ecosystems that are created by humans. If we do not, we will be focused on preserving the past instead of gearing toward the future.

Rambunctious Gardens by Emma Marris talks about how the conservation of nature is unsuccessful using current methods. Marris believes that restoring effected areas to “baseline” is ineffective. She states that there isn’t a place on the Earth that hasn’t been affected by humans. “We have stirred the global pot,” she says (Marris 10).

Since nature is always changing and being affected by everything around it, it is almost impossible to restore it to its “baseline.” Also, nature has its own way of changing nature. Volcanic activity in Hawaii affects the ecosystems present there. Like Hawaii, ecosystems need a fresh start to allow the species to grow without interference from other factors. Usually, the removal of certain existing species can be lengthy. There just isn’t enough participation from people in order for this restoration to be a quick process.

Marris visited many restoration projects such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and the Scotia Sanctuary. Such projects require a lot of effort to begin and complete. For many of these projects, invasive species are first removed so that the original species have an opportunity to grow. Human beings were included in the species that were removed. This is an extremely difficult endeavor to partake especially with all the obstacles. This proves how ineffective current conservation methods are. Even though some results can be observed, it just isn’t strong enough to bring about dramatic changes.

Marris believes that nature should be preserved through this idea of a rambunctious garden. The rambunctious garden includes nature everywhere. This includes places in the city such as trees on the sidewalk and the backyard of a suburban home. If everyone took the effort to help protect nature, they should start with the nature that surrounds them already. This project will require less effort from people. This only holds true if everyone participates to protect the nature around them. The money and time spent on restoring areas to their previous “forms” is a tedious and ineffective strategy.

Even though Marris believes that the idea of a rambunctious garden will help us preserve nature, I still believe that it will be futile. The rate at which humans are affecting the ecosystem is too drastic for such small changes to make an impact. I do agree that it is a good step to begin with and can set the foundation for environmental protection projects in the future. Most people have accepted the fact that restoring nature is a lost cause. I also believe that protecting nature is far fetched due to the selfish nature of mankind. It’s a pity that nature cannot be appreciated as it was. However, trying to protect the very little nature around us isn’t going to change the majority of the ecosystems throughout the world.

Emma Marris immediately presents her standpoint in the fundamental environmental debate with the title of her book, Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. Though “rambunctious garden” may seem like a paradox at first, the concept is fairly easy to grasp. “Rambunctious” as in letting nature run its’ course and “garden” as in allowing humans to oversee and manage. Marris states that this notion “creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left (3).

In “Weeding the Jungle”, Marris calls on history, statistics, and her own personal experiences in order to put into perspective how the natural world has changed at the hands of humanity. Additionally, Marris presents the notion of a pristine wildness (another paradox) and modern efforts to recreate it. She describes pristine wildness as a cultural construction of an idealistic world (15). It is impossible, Marris argues, to create a pristine wildness unaffected by mankind. Numerous difficulties prevent us from doing so: disagreements on baselines, sparse or non-existent information on what was present, extinct animal and plant species, atmospheric disparity, etc. Still, the pristine wildness approach dominates conservationists. Marris advocates that is only when that ideology is dispelled and modified that we can move forward. Marris also suggests that, depending on the needs and wants of people, “forests…can be managed to achieve a smorgasbord of alternative goals” (13).

The “Yellowstone Model”, the views and writings of past conservationists and romantics and their contrasting views are presented. Marris says, Americans “perfected and exported the ‘Yellowstone Model,’ based on setting aside pristine wilderness areas and banning all human use therein, apart from tourism” (18). This model has set a precedent of conservation, prompting other countries with “lots of land inhabited by few people—or by people with few rights” (25) to follow. The caveat of the Yellowstone Model is that it requires land to be “untouched”. This leads to the forcing-out of indigenous people, which we first saw in the Conservation in the Anthropocene article. Marris builds on this, stating that forcing native people out is ironic, as “their land had sufficient nature to interest conservationists in the first place. (26).

Marris, instead of holding onto accepted theories against human intervention, creates a unique approach that embraces humanity. I agree that trying to restore places hundreds or thousands of years back is fruitless and that we should look to the future. While I believe that saving species from extinction is necessary, creating and maintaining exclusive havens for them is not the way to go about it. Not only do these refuges require a lot of time and resources, but also sheltering and isolating species is what led to the demise of many (6). The belief in a pristine wildness may be the ideal for many, but it is far from realistic in the world that we live in. Humans have altered the world too much as is to return to such a state. Marris put it best when she wrote, “layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future, rather than the past, is the cutting edge of conservation” (14).

In Rambunctious Garden, Emma Harris’ main point is that society’s ideal of “nature” is ill-conceived and it needs to change in order to make the best of the opportunities open to us.
She claims that we generally think of the “virgin” and “pristine” as true nature (2-3), while those ecosystems brought about by man are not. These are fair claims, and she traces the birth of these ideas from the 18th and 19th centuries, reviewing how it slowly developed from thinkers such as Emerson, Thoreau and Muir (32-34). She makes it clear that these ideas have been manufactured in human minds and are not absolute principles. The Yosemite chapter also gives much support to the argument that keeping an ecosystem aligned with its “baseline”. A healthy ecosystem cannot be captured in a snapshot of a single moment, but is subject to shift according to Earth’s ever-changing conditions and surprises. Not only this, but life itself has already accounted for what we would consider “disturbances”, as evidenced by Harris’ example of seeds that need a recent forest fire to grow.
The mindset that Harris pieces apart is a paradoxical one where humans simultaneously shame themselves for human imperfection into Mother Earth and bestow themselves with the responsibility of “restoring” the perfection that once was, because we are able.
We consider humans to be so alien to “nature” that any change we bring is “degradation” (24). Humans are outsiders, trampling on the goodness of nature with a mixture of clumsiness and evilness. The idea is that anything we influence is the very opposite of nature. However, we also feel that we are so influential and powerful that we are compelled fix the problems we have wrought and bring about “restoration”.
I, like Harris, believe that this traditional style of thinking is both impractical and purely a cultural product. However, I am wary of Harris’ confidence that we are able to be responsible gardeners of the “rambunctious garden” Earth has become. It’s my impression that she is not just merely suggesting that we stop trying to aim for repairs but begin developing our own ecosystems (something only hinted here, but the chapter titles are telling). It is true that we often give exaggerated significance to nature untouched by man, but do we trust man to make the right and wise decisions necessary to build a better future? One of the points Harris brings up in the Yellowstone chapter is the complexity and constant flux of most ecosystems makes it basically impossible to recreate (let alone manage) how an ecosystem used to be. Who says that we know enough about Earth’s cycles and flora that we are able to create environments we have in mind?
There is reason why human activity  has built up stigma. A book I have recently read, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond, covers a myriad of examples of how humans have misjudged, created change in their environment, and brought their own demise. An example shared by both books is the rabbit and fox populations of Australia. While Harris focuses on the ridiculousness and burdensomeness of the attempt to rid the continent of the pests, Diamond delves deeper into other implications of their population boom. Rabbits are responsible for eating so much of Australia’s plant-life that native herbivores struggle to survive the competition, as well as domesticated animals that are vital to the country’s economy like sheep and cattle. The pests are not simply pests because they do not belong or ruin a “historical baseline”, but they literally eating away Australian’s income and well-being. The problem is so great that every year, a few hundred million dollars are spent on rabbit control alone. It is not unlikely that well-intended projects can become disasters.
While it is silly to consider traditional “pristine wilderness” as perfection, the underlying (and more powerful) notion is that nature has gradually come to achieve that kind of balance over countless years. I trust that ecosystems can and will find new balance as humans introduce new species and tinker with finding the “better” and “best” combinations. But that process may not necessarily go as we imagine. I agree with most of Harris’ points but I do feel that there is a certain degree of security we can find with traditional protected lands as compared to human ventures.

In the past couple of years, human development has increased exponentially and has touched upon many aspects of the Earth. Thus, the effects of the development has increased exponentially. To match the effects of their development, humans have increased the concentration done on conversations. But chapters one and two of Rambunctious Garden questions as too how we have misinterpreted the methods and thought processes of these actions. What we see as nature is something that is not touched upon by humanity. That is why environmentalists and conservationists are trying to reach baselines, which is “a zero point before all negative changes.”  However, Marris believes that there is no such thing. Instead of thinking that way, Marris quotes, ” We can find beauty in nature, even if signs of humanity are present.”

Marris expresses her thoughts on baselines in chapters one and two. She writes, “ecosystems are in constant dance, as their components compete, react, evolve, migrate, and form new communities.” It is nearly impossible to look back in time to see how the environment was like beforehand. Even through using all the available resources like fossil pollen records and climate information, we still can not see what it looked like thousands of years ago. She also points out that, ” A historically faithful ecosystem is necessarily a heavily managed ecosystem. It is not the “pristine wilderness” many nature lovers look to as the ideal… If we define wild as “unmanaged,” then the ecosystems that look the most pristine are least likely to be truly wild.”  As we live in a world heavily operated by humans, it is very unlikely to find an area that is untouched. And as we block off areas for conservations, we are still being involved in the process of changing the area to before humans changed it.

Another idea that Marris expresses is the definition of “nature.” People picture nature, they see those magazine pictures of forests, deserts, and oceans. However, people fail to realize that nature is all around them. The small park a few blocks down from your house is also nature. We are too focused on our own definition of nature that we fail to recognize the nature surrounding us. We think we live in a place isolated away from nature, and feel the need the travel away from the city to experience nature, when it fact it is always beside us.

In chapters one and two, Marris comments on the traditional views of conservation. She wrote, “This faith that native ecosystems are better than changed ecosystems is so pervasive in fields like ecology that it has become an unquestioned assumption.” And she ends with, “The cult of pristine wilderness is a cultural construction, and a relatively new one.” People think that nature is always better than what people themselves have made throughout the years. I agree with Marris and her views against the traditional method of conservation. People think on extremes, whether it is their definition of nature or in trying to go back to the baselines. We need to incorporate new methods in embracing humanity’s work on nature and work from their in finding new methods of conservation.

Emma Marris’s novel Rambunctious Gardens- Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World suggests the readers to see the nature through a different view. In the first chapter, Marris introduces here thesis and the current state of the ecologists and their conservation projects. One of the major goals of the ecologists is to return nature to its “baseline”.  People strive for the most natural state of the ecosystems. The term “baseline” refers to a most basic state of nature. However, Marris argues that there is no way for the nature to be pristine. It means by that nature changes even without any human interference. So here is my question? What is the base or the standard for nature? Is there a real pristine nature? My answer is no. The nature has been changing from the beginning when there were no humans. The other aspect of nature such as animals and climates has evolved and changed each other. Yes, it is the humans that destroyed the nature and made problems. However, my point is that it is pointless for the humans trying to restore the damages.  One of the past two articles states that the speed of nature’s restoration is unbelievably fast. Therefore, what human needs to do is not to disturb the nature while it restores. (Which seems like impossible at this state.)

Current conservation projects isolate the nature from the human society. The ecologist hopes for the protected area to return to its pristine state since there is no human contact with the land. However, the conservation project drives people away from the homes. Eliminating people from there traditional habitual area to protect lands seems hypocritical. Ecologists strive for the pristine nature, however, the protected area are basically man-made. Humans control everything inside the area. So, is protected natural area such as Grand Canyon and Yellow Stone Park pristine?

Later on in the chapters, Marris introduces the readers the idea of “rambunctious garden.” In rambunctious garden, humans and nature live together as one. Marris states are nature and ecosystem is everything between our very own backyards to the protected area. This statement criticizes current operation of conservation projects as it only focuses on the protected areas. What ecologists must realize is that it is important to protect nature that resides with human in the urban ecosystem. Therefore, the rambunctious garden is solution to the current problems of the ecosystem. Since there is no pristine or the baseline of nature, what we can to is to make sure the nature survives with the existence of humans.

Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden is a book that describes a new type of conservation that we should adopt instead of trying to restore patches of our nature to pristine ecosystems. Her main point focuses on how we are losing nature by misplacing it. We should not look at nature as pristine ecosystems, but as rambunctious gardens.

Marris points out why recreating pristine ecosystem is almost impossible. First, there is no pristine wilderness on planet Earth in 2011 (2). There is no way to preserve pristine if there’s no more “virgin” areas untouched by human influence. We stirred the globe too much that it is difficult to reverse the damages and changes we had done on our planet. Second, there are few or no spots on earth with ecosystems that remained unchanged for more than 12,000 years (34). Even without human influences, climate changes and natural disasters like wildfires can change an ecosystem dramatically. Yellowstone, a model for many preservation efforts in the world, is “non-equilibrial”. The fire in Yellowstone in 1988 was an example. Species can be wiped out by one fire, where they can be recovered or be replaced by new species that better adapt to the new ecosystem created by the disaster. Third, secular climate changes occur constantly without human input, which provide constant changes in ecosystems. We are currently in the interglacial period, where temperature is getting warmer on its own and ecosystem is constantly changing. Setting a baseline and trying to counter all the human influence and natural climate changes is ineffective. Some pristine species, according to the set baseline, might not be able to survive and grow in the climate and the environment of their ecosystems today

Marris also gives some examples of recreating pristine ecosystem to prove it as time consuming and ineffective. Recreating pristine ecosystem includes getting rid of the invasive and undesired species in an ecosystem to allow the “original” species to grow. Tony Cathcart took eighteen months to conduct the removal of introduced animals in a fenced block in Scotia Sanctuary. It took more than 6 years to remove introduced species in about thirty miles of ecosystem.  As Marris states, “… unless the whole country decide that its number-one priority is ridding Australia of feral animals, these little fenced islands are all that pristine focused conservationists can hope for” (11). Recreating pristine ecosystem is ineffective in terms of time and money. Also, recreating pristine ecosystem includes forcing the inhabitants to evacuate the land they live in. It creates problems and inconveniences to inhabitants that are doing little damages to the nature. On the other hand, recreating pristine ecosystem by getting rid of thousands of species is doing way worse to the nature than what those inhabitants ever did.

I agree with the case Marris presents in the chapters about having rambunctious gardens instead of pristine ecosystems as the best conservation method. As Marris describes it, “Rambunctious gardening is proactive and optimistic; it creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left” (3). I think Marris is saying that we should work with nature instead of restoring our environment to its pristine look. As she states, no single goal will provide for a well-rounded conservation program (14). Thus, a conservation program should be a collection of alternative goals (13). Part of the project can be cleared of undesired species to teach people about its ecological history; part of it can be a protected area for endangered species, another section can specialize in species that are important to the culture of its people and economics of its area. I think doing conservation projects as such is one of the better ways in achieving conservation, without damaging the true nature to recreate the pristine nature.