In chapters three and four of Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris introduces the idea of pleistocene rewilding. This concept is different than the traditional views of conservationists, who want to return areas back to their baselines. Pleistocene rewilding is the reintroduction of similar animals to an environment in which those similar animals have gone extinct. The concept has a lot to do with reintroducing predators, also known as those which are on “top of the pyramid”, to these environments. These predators would be those who kept the cycle and harmony of the environment in check. Without predators, the only characteristic that would keep this cycle in check would be the competition for food. With only one option, the environment will end up losing its harmony and balance.
At first, while reading the chapters, I thought that rewilding was a more sensible and possible idea than returning an area to its baseline. Returning an area to its baseline is nearly impossible, while rewilding has a chance of working. However, while reading more and more of the bok, and having a moment to think about it, I realized that rewilding would not be the best investment. As read in chapters one and two of the book, nature is constantly changing. It will be nearly impossible to recreate the environment of an area 13,000 years ago today.
Another reason being is that how can we be sure the animals will adapt and thrive in the environment they are placed in? Although similar animals would be introduced to the environment of those that have gone extinct, we cannot say for sure whether they will live successfully, or die out like the other animals. To increase even the percentage of their survival, a lot of research will have to be allotted to this plan, as well as investments. And even if the initial stage of finding the perfect animal to be moved into that area was accomplished, the animals and the environment would have to be constantly manhandled, making it lose it’s “pristine” definition. Even after it looks like the animals are striving in the area, who are we to say that they will continue to strive if humans took their hands off? Perhaps it might only be a temporary solution, until they start showing the same results as those before them.
Not only can it bring problems to those living around these areas who can possibly be harmed by large animals, but it also brings up ethical problems. Donlan quotes, “A big criticism of this is ‘you are playing god.'” And this is true. Although the intention of rewilding is for the better, it will also bring negative effects.
Instead of trying to figure out new ways to bring back ecosystems as they used to be, I strongly believe that conservationists should spend their time trying to incorporate the environment we live in now to their plans. Why try to take back everything that humans have made with their time and effort, when they can try to mesh together and create a plan that will benefit both parties?
