Marris introduces this new and foreign topic to the common individual termed radical rewilding. In contrast to the previous chapters, which focus primarily on maintaining the pristine wilderness, rewilding is all about complete human manipulation to an ecosystem. This approach seems refreshing at first because of the success stories Marris lays out in Chapter 4, however there are also negative impacts of it that Marris indicates in her writing. I believe that rewilding is an fascinating concept, but too much of it requires sheer guessing, and the risk of that is simply too high.
The two ecologists Marris introduces are Frans Vera and Josh Dolan. They both utilize this concept of Pleistocene rewilding, where the baseline is set to “13,000 or more years ago, before humans drove any species extinct” (57.) Unlike baselines of pre-colonization, a Pleistocene baseline contains animals that are extinct, so ecologists use “proxies for those lost species” (58.) For instance in the reserve of Oostavaardersplassen, Netherlands managed by Vera, there are Polish Konik horses grazing the field, and genetically engineered Heck Cattle mimicking the extinct Auroch. The second step to this type of rewilding is that their must be a “diverse, top of the food chain predators,” because through the competition of these predators there will eventually be a smaller more diverse group of predators, who allow for medium size predators, who then in turn create a smaller more diverse group of smaller predators and herbivores (60.) Through this process, even though there is direct human manipulation and control, the diversification of the species is naturally occurring and in essence is creating a true wilderness.
This may sound marvelous in concept, however so does the concept of flying sheep. Just because the theory exists, doesn’t mean it’s feasible. Even though Marris subtly says that perhaps this is an alternative to the relentless maintenance of the “pristine wilderness,” this does no better. For one this entire concept is based on the concept of assumptions and opinions versus fact and figures. Marris herself says that overtime the earth has changed regardless of human intervention and going back to an older baseline is both impractical and useless, and rewilding uses the baseline of 13,000 years ago. There is obviously no certain documentation of what the ecosystem was like then, and many ecologists such as Dustin Rubenstein believe that “proxy animals could generate unpredictable results,” because simply put the outcome is unknown (65.) These introduced proxy animals could become invasive species in reserves and neighborhoods surrounding the reserve. Dolans solution of “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again,” sounds both unreasonable and morbid (65.) Even though Vera’s Oostavaardersplassen has worked, who’s to say that there won’t be issues with that reserve in the future? Rather than moving backward to 13,000 years ago perhaps it’s more practical to sustain what we have now.
The second criticism is put perfectly by Dolans critics who say, “you are playing G-d” (64.) Ethically speaking the ecologists who control these projects are playing with the lives of many species, many of which are already endangered. The third part of this theory requires death, so that there are smaller subsets of diverse species, however if that goes wrong than many of these endangered animals that are introduced and attracted to these reserves may become extinct. Marris touches upon this morbid idea that animals are required to be killed, by giving the overly descriptive image of the red deer, whose “anus had been gnawed into a large hole by foxes ” (59.) Although this is the natural cycle of life, humans shouldn’t be the ones deciding an entire food chain based upon predictions and assumptions of how things used to be. On top of that, the animals introduced are proxies or genetically engineered. This concept is most definitely interesting, however this is an “egregious case of human intervention in wild landscapes” (64.) Dolan and Vera’s scientific theories should be just theories. It is wrong to play with the lives of thousands of animals, waste millions of dollars, cause potential harm to humans living in these areas to simply test out a theory. The result is not “ a garden about wilderness,” but a childish science experiment.
