1. You seem to be very practical in your approach to conservation, so would you agree that the function of an ecosystem is more important than its composition?
2. Are you willing to accept the consequences (extinctions, loss of larger species, aesthetic beauty etc.) that come with abandoning the traditional approach to conservation?
3. If we embrace the idea of cultivating rambunctious gardens, does that give us licenses continue human encroachment on wildlife? Or is the rambunctious garden simply a solution meant for conservation in places where human disturbance is reeking havoc?
4. Even if the idea of a Rambunctious Garden was implemented fully, isn’t there a limit to the amount of species these fragmented wildernesses can support within a city? If so, wouldn’t the cost of advocating and implementing the idea be of better use if geared towards a more all-encompassing approach?
5. You mentioned that some of your peers are slowly coming to negative conclusions in their attempt to achieve pristine wilderness by reverting to the baseline. How feasible is it that such attitudes will become published and supported in the near future? Especially since the government is already heavily invested in the more traditional approaches to conservation.
