From the first two chapters of Emma Marris’ Rambunctious Garden, it is apparent that the main point she wants to convey is that the goals of conventional ecologists are flawed and outdated ways of approaching conservation. She is explaining her thoughts on how science’s and the public’s romantic stance on nature being simple, pristine, and unaltered, should not be the basis for modern day conservation. The ideal vision of a pristine wilderness should be put behind us to allow for a more rambunctious wilderness to grow in conjunction with human intervention(hence the term garden).
Chapter one establishes the idea of a baseline that many ecologists and conservationists strive for when protecting a land. Marris deconstructs the idea of a baseline throughout the two chapters to allow the readers to see that the world and nature is not stagnant or unchanging. The baseline that most ecologists strive for is one that is unaltered by people, or has most of its native species intact. Marris makes it clear that a pristine wilderness is simply unrealistic, which is a point that I can agree on. She says that, “the ecosystems that look the most pristine are perhaps the least likely to be truly wild.” If a baseline were to be achieved, constant human intervention, like at the Australian Scotia Sanctuary, would be necessary to keep the lands in a “pristine” state. Aside from the costs of maintaining pristine wilderness, the fact that humans are needed to tend to these protected lands weakens the pristine aspect of mother nature.
These “romantic” ecologists tend to believe that an unchanging nature is how nature was aways supposed to be. They believe that a “balance of nature” or equilibrium in an ecosystem is the ending point for any stable ecosystem. However, most ecosystems never hold still. There is no point where nature is always in in equilibrium, so the romantic nature that we try to recreate is an unreasonable idea. Marris brings to our attention that change is unavoidable, thus we should take advantage of nature’s characteristic to be wild and rambunctious. Marris mentions that, currently, many conservation park managers are looking towards the idea of “resilience” in their ecosystems. This is the idea that ecosystems are strong enough to gradually change on their own, and are not unstable to the point that several species are threatened. If an ecosystem does reach a point of instability, human intervention is welcomed.
I find that Marris’ case to be compelling, but I also feel that she does not give enough credit to the current conservation/protection of ecosystems. While the idea of allowing a rambunctious garden/world to grow is charming, protecting special lands and endangered species are still issues that have to be addressed. There should be a balance between protecting lands, maintaining unstable ecosystems (ecosystems where some species are threatened), and allowing for nature to take its course.
