Rambunctious ch. 1-2

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.