Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris seems to be a very thought-provoking book. Throughout the first two chapters, Marris explains her views on the current state of ecology. First, Marris makes it clear that in today’s day and age there is no such thing as “pristine wilderness.” She explains that no ecological habitats have been uninfluenced by humans since prehistoric times. Next, Marris attacks the attempts of many conservationists to return specific habitats to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris attacks the Yellowstone Model and elaborates on the difficulty and costliness of achieving this goal. Finally, Marris argues against the “balance of nature view,” which states that nature does not change on its own very much, but instead remains at a stable equilibrium. Marris retorts that chaos is more common than stability in most ecosystems and that natural events such as fires and climatic changes are constantly changing habitats all over the world.
It seems clear from these two chapters that Marris’s main point is that there is beauty in the new ecosystems that are being created today. Although some conservationists may argue that ecosystems in places such as New York City are impure, Marris believes that native ecosystems are not any better than these new “synthetic” ecosystems. Marris finds beauty in this new nature in which nonnative species interact with native ones. In fact, she believes that these new “synthetic” ecosystems are just as beautiful as natural ecosystems untouched by humans. Marris argues that “the changes, the disturbance, the outlying events, and the confounding factors are often the most important drivers of the system” (34). This quote exemplifies her belief that conservationists must stray away from trying to return ecosystems to the way they were before humans arrived. Marris is a realist and understands that in the highly advanced societies of today it is impossible to eliminate the effects of humans on natural ecosystems. She recognizes that it is inevitable that humans will affect nature. This is demonstrated when she states that “we must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness and find room next to it for the more nuanced notion of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden, tended by us” (2). Just like Kareiva et al in “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” Marris believes that coexistence should be achieved between humans and wilderness.
Marris has made a good case for her point throughout these two chapters. First, she points out the costliness and difficulty of maintaining preserved areas. For example, she writes that it took nearly six years to kill the nonnative species in The Australian Wildlife Conservancy. Also, she illuminates the fact that millions of people have been forced to resettle due to preservation. Finally, she argues that maintaining preservations is nearly impossible due to the extreme amount of money and manpower required.
I agree with Marris’s view on the current state of ecology. I think we need to establish some sort of coexistence between humans and wilderness. This is because the effects that humans have on every ecosystem are impossible to deny. As industrialization continues to increase, ecosystems will continue to be affected. However, humans cannot halt advancement for the benefit of nature. A balance needs to be established between nature and wilderness. We must accept these new “synthetic” ecosystems that are created by humans. If we do not, we will be focused on preserving the past instead of gearing toward the future.
