Emma Marris begins her book, Rambunctious Garden, by saying the “dream of pristine wilderness haunts us. It blinds us,” a point I predict she will continue to emphasize (1). I agree with Marris’ perspective that we cannot solely mourn the last remaining pristine places, but we must rather look to the future, understand the change and “admit our role and even embrace it” (2). If we fail to recognize that nature is continuously changing and that man is involved in this process, I fear that conservation would become a competition between man and nature that can leave us hopeless with the inclination to give up.
I anticipate that Marris will continue to write from her “proactive and optimistic” mindset of “creat[ing] more and more nature”(3), in lieu of areas of “pristine wilderness”. I think Marris’ thesis follows this theme and will concern the importance of being “proactive and optimistic” when approaching conservation, ensuring that we work to incorporate nature and man in accepting change and understanding the environment.
Marris’ introduction of the “baseline” seems well supported by her inclusion of the various accounts that devalue this theory. The baseline theory seems to be the opposite of what she calls being “proactive and optimistic” as we are, by adhering to the “baseline,” working towards a goal that is not very feasible nor practical. Marris is successful at conveying the negative impact of having “protected areas,” places Michael Soule and Bruce Wilcox introduce in their book as the “most valuable weapons in our conservation arsenal” (26). This process is both time consuming and costly and has had, and can continue to have, detrimental impacts on the indigenous peoples of these regions. Once again, this process would be “mourning” what we don’t have anymore by trying to return to the “baseline” state of an area.
I appreciate Marris’ honest and direct attitude towards the idea of conservation and I anticipate this mindset will carry on throughout the book. This perspective is illustrated by such responses as “ nothing is going to go all the way back to the way it used to be, not even the Laupahoehoe Natural Area Reserve, so valued for its pristineness that it is used as a reference area-a contemporary baseline–for all similar forests” (8).
In her first two chapters, Marris successfully introduces unique and relevant ideas that seem well supported by research. I appreciate her inclusion of arguments that support her view as well as those that oppose it. This gives readers a well-balanced view of conservation and the opportunity to form opinions and perspectives on the issue.
I look forward to reading more about “pristine wilderness,” an idea that seems to contribute to her overarching theme.
I agree with her insight to the apparent wilderness of “pristine areas,” locations which have often been altered by man to look wild and natural. Despite an area’s apparent wilderness, it is often these areas, according to Marris, that are the least wild and natural.
Understanding “anthropocene” and Marris’ ideas of “cutting edge conservation” (14) is vital for the future of our environment. I anticipate that Marris will continue exploring the dangerous mentality of viewing humans as the only factors impacting the environment. This mentality could make the situation a man versus nature case as opposed to man working with nature, thus perhaps making what Marris refers to as the “mistake” of “thinking that nature is something ‘out there’, far away” (1).
