Emma Marris begins her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World by informing the reader exactly what her main points throughout the book will be. She suggests that the previous ideas of conservation are flawed and states that the book “is about a new way of seeing nature.”
Marris explains that humans have previously thought of nature as something pristine and far away. This concept comes from the earlier ideas of conservation, which involved setting aside wild spaces as parks that would be left alone by humans. One of the major flaws in this idea is the fact that humans have had such a great impact on the environment that it is impossible for any part of the world to be pristine and untouched by humans.
As Marris describes, scientific studies of the environment use a baseline. She defines a baseline as a reference state and “a zero before all negative changes.” She lists the many flaws with baselines. For one, it is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to properly return an ecosystem to a point before human interference. Marris uses Scotia Sanctuary as an example of a park attempting to restore an ecosystem to a baseline. Clearing the animals that had been introduced to that region of Australia out of the sanctuary was an extremely difficult task that involved “incredible patience and commitment.” While some of the introduced species in the sanctuary, such as goats, were easy to get rid of, others, including cats, were not. One cat took one hundred eighty seven nights to catch. This proves just how much it takes to make an ecosystem pristine. It takes a significant amount of human intervention to create and maintain a sanctuary such as the Scotia Sanctuary. As Marris points out, considering the amount of human intervention required, it is difficult to say that a place like the Scotia Sanctuary could be considered wild.
A second flaw with the use of baselines is that, even if they can be achieved, we would only be returning these areas to their state before humans arrived. This would be wrong because, even without human intervention, nature goes through changes.
Baselines definitely have benefits for conservation. They give us an idea of what we need to do in order to preserve nature and biodiversity. However, it is important to understand that the goal doesn’t need to be for an ecosystem to perfectly match its historical state. To do so would be unrealistic and incorrect.
Another flaw in the previous view of nature is that it seems to ignore the parts of nature that actually are close to us. Marris argues that nature exists in even the most developed areas. She points out that, when we stop only considering the pristine to be nature, we begin to see it all around us. Even in heavily developed areas, nature exists in yards, on streets, along rivers, and in more places than we realize. Even introduced species are a part of nature.
Marris argues that, because humans have such a great impact on the world, we need to “admit our role and even embrace it.” I agree with many of the points she made and I believe we need to look at nature in the bigger picture and, instead of focusing so much on conservation, we should also be putting more effort into researching and implementing ideas to improve what nature we have locally.
