In Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris tries to point our mistakes about looking towards nature from an idealistic point of view- that it exists untouched and pristine in a distant corner. Author Marris also points out that the traditionally held point of views about conservation must also be modified because nature not only exists in national parks, boreal forests and the Arctic, but also in backyards, forrest plantations and even city blocks.According to Marris, we must abandon our romanticized notion of pristine wilderness and take on the responsibility of tending a new garden of nature, which is everywhere. We must move on from the deeply held views of “pristine wilderness” as the ideal for every landscape, and adopt a new standard which is as dynamic as the changing ecosystems themselves.
Despite human presence, ecosystems are always changing due to several factors, therefore Marris in the first chapter points out the difficulty in setting an appropriate baseline for establishing a time period- where nature is pristine and untouched. Furthermore, in terms of time and money the procedure often proves to be rather difficult and impractical.
It is clear that most ecosystems or wildernesses have been misplaced, but still several conversationalists strongly adhere to the idea of creating restoration parks that aim to recreate a former time- for instance Cathcart’s efforts in Australia, where non-native species are being eradicated and “pristine wilderness” is being kept in fences.
According to Marris, there is a distinction between preventing extinction and trying to recreate a former system. It may not be feasible to return to the past, but preventing extinction certainly possible and does not require perpetual weeding.
A new view of conservation needs to be established, and the future must be embraced rather than abandoned in an effort to bring back the past. Just because an ecosystem has changed, it doesn’t make it worthless. They still drive the natural processes and help with problems such as climate change.
No one approach to the conservation efforts is adequate, what is important- to layer goals and manage landscapes with an eye for the future, rather than the past. The whole notion of preserving what is native and pristine is a misconception which is deeply rooted into the fields of ecology and must be modified.
I strongly agree with Marris’ point of views- Just because a specie is non-native, and fits perfectly well into an ecosystem does not make it any different. It helps achieve the overall goals and contributes to the landscape. Furthermore, in the current world wilderness in its pristine and romanticized form can only be kept in controlled zoo-like environments, so is it truly wilderness if its kept tamed? And is justified to eradicate a specie because it doesn’t originally belong to that landscape? Marris makes excellent points and questions are deeply rooted views about conservation, wilderness and ecology.
