Marris Chapters 8 & 9

One idea Marris brings up in these chapters is that regarding “building to achieve a particular goal” (126). Rather than focusing solely on returning nature to a “baseline” that is often falsely held, it would be far more beneficial for us to decide on a specific goal we wish to achieve and then progress and build on that foundation. She provides us with examples of these goals, ranging from “nitrogen reduction” to “sediment capture” (125). Although all of these processes could require both funds and effort, they seem more practical than having the broad goal of returning to a pristine, untouched piece of land that would be significantly difficult to maintain. A concise summary regarding this process is made on page 127, where Marris suggests that this process can be evaluated based on a few factors: what it is you are striving for, as well as the “size of project, budget, and how much the place has already changed” (127). After assessing these aspects of the proposed project, one might even come to the conclusion that “a designer ecosystem may be better than the recreation of a historical ecosystem” (127). I appreciate the idea Marris brings up regarding many ecologists’ flexible approach to designer ecosystems, often fueled by the optimistic motto of “whatever works” (127). Given the difficulty of predicting the exact behavior of plants, animals, climate and ecosystems as a whole, this open-minded perspective will be beneficial when it comes to adapting to an environment that is undergoing constant change. We cannot hold on to this superficial baseline of what we assume is “pristine wilderness”. In chapter 9, Marris continues to bring up interesting suggestions as to how we should interact with the nature around us. I support the ideas she brings up regarding utilizing spaces in industrialized regions, such as the land surrounding parking lots. Perhaps we could turn these areas into more interesting places that host a variety of plant and animal species as opposed to solely concrete and pavement. This is what Marris refers to as appreciating the nature that surrounds us. It also addresses the possibility we have of creating more nature. It was particularly interesting to read about New York City and the potential increase in the diversity of our city if we “were willing to plant species with less pest resistance and accept the tattered leaves and petals that come with it” (146). I understand the difficulty of achieving this as many are concerned with the “conventional aesthetic standards,” which is an understandable concern, however, also an unfortunate hindrance to the potentials of our environment.  I am fascinated by the idea of “bees zooming across the five boroughs” that “could tie isolated specimens together into a metapopulation” (146).  It would be very interesting to observe “the insect fauna” and diversity this process would attract and the effect it would have on the city as a whole. Marris continues to explore the endless possibilities of incorporating nature into our daily lives by examining privately held gardens and the ability to use these smaller-scale gardens when it comes to experimenting and providing larger scale projects, such as those in agriculture, with feedback and results. This could be beneficial as “gardeners can afford to be ahead of the curve” and perhaps take more risks that those who financially depend on the targeted processes (149). Marris concludes chapter 9 with the basis behind these unique efforts, suggesting that if we solely accept “pristine wilderness” as nature, we are not allowing those who live in more industrialized neighborhoods to appreciate and enjoy the “humble natural settings” that do exist and are dismissing the great possibilities of “spiritual and aesthetic experiences” that urbanized areas have to offer (150).

This entry was posted in 10/2: Marris, chaps 8-9, Scientific Work, Weekly Readings. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply