In the first two chapters of Emma Harris’ book, Rambunctious Garden, she states that the idea that the only true type of nature is “pristine” or untouched by humans is a misguided one. She argues that this view of nature is not only unrealistic, but also impossible. Instead, people today need to readjust their view of nature to embrace it as it is today, despite the human interferences.
Harris first addresses the difficulties of creating these “pristine” areas and the massive efforts needed to create “islands like the past” (9) by using examples of these protected areas. One project the Australian Wildlife Conservancy was working on was to return the condition of a part of the outback to the time when humans first landed in Australia. The creation and maintenance of such a place requires an enormous human effort. Firstly, to ensure that the project can be kept in pristine conditions, “sturdy, tall and electrified” fences surround the area (10). The second step requires removing all the invasive species, humans included, to allow the native species to thrive. At the Sanctuary, this means getting rid of all the cats, rabbits, goats and foxes that were introduced. Various methods were used to remove these animals, such as shooting, poisoning and trapping these species. People who originally lived in the areas are also considered invasive, and thus also forced to leave. In the Yellowstone Model example, the Indians that had an initial agreement to allow them to stay; however they were eventually “forcibly removed” (26). Although many conservationists today are starting to realize that people do not have to leave to protect an area, the idea of having no people from the Yellowstone Model is difficult to change. Harris illustrates the great amounts of work needed to achieve pristine nature.
In addition to showing the difficulties involved in creating untouched nature, Harris states the uselessness of these projects. According to Harris, one of the popular ideas among conservationists is that nature would not have changed much without humans. In response to this, she gives several examples to show how nature is constantly changing, and thus shows how trying to return nature to a certain point in time is pointless. Harris discusses how some ecosystems not only are able to deal with disturbances, but actually “thrive” on it (29). One example is how some seeds are unable to begin growing until there has been a fire. In general, ecosystems are able to return to their original state if the disturbance was not too severe or adapt to the change. Common disturbance involve changes in the climate such as changes in temperature or rainfall patterns, but the ecosystems are able to adapt. Due to these adaptations, ecosystems cannot remain unchanged for “more than a few thousand years” (34). Thus, Harris is saying that these changes the people have caused are not necessarily negative since it is difficult to say how these ecosystems would have changed without human alteration. Finally, Harris points out that these “natural” human created environments are no more real than zoos. Through all these examples, Harris shows how these projects are silly and pointless.
I think that Harris makes a valid argument, especially about how the human created environments almost contradict the entire idea of pristine nature. I also agree that humans need to embrace the natural environment around them, despite how much they have been changed by humans.
