It seems like my prediction was right. Marris had started with the premise that nature is not necessarily pristine so that she might dive into the argument that human involvement in making nature “better” is good and even wanted. She goes into depth about the concept of “rewilding”, which is very much “radical” like chapter 4’s title describes.
My intuitive response is that of my first post: it is folly to think that humans have enough wisdom to build ecosystems based on their own theories. I highly doubt fixing a situation that has gotten out of hand is as easy as “just killing all of them again”. There are countless factors that play a part in any ecosystem, such that our predictions of what may result from rewilding may be completely off. According to her, we will attempt to bring in species that will fill in what we perceive as “emptied gaps” in ecosystems left by extinct ones… but will we see the right niches and match correctly? It more feels like a child playing mad chemistry professor, experimenting as he wishes until he feels satisfied.
Even if the idea of rewilding was promising enough to try, I would still hold a critical view against Marris. She offers very little convincing evidence that rewilding is such a beneficial enterprise. On the contrary, I felt that the fact that it would be “cool” to have megafauna back in North America and Europe was more developed than any empirical perspective. Most of her reasoning is human-centric, rather than nature-centric.
I am honestly having trouble following some of her logic. She outlines a case against the ideal of “pristine nature”, claiming it is a manmade concept and silly because nearly no nature on Earth has been completely out of humans’ touch. (This is somewhat a non-case to begin with since she acknowledges several times that most, if not all, ecologists are aware of this fact…) Well, the idea that megafauna are “cool” and would be great to have around is also a very manmade, culture-based product. I have no qualms with calling the idea silly as well, because resurrecting the feel of the Pleistocene period is simply not ample reason for completing these actions. For me, the book offers no really satisfying proof that megafauna are worth more than what they will cost (both economically and potentially ecologically). Species are unique. Their specific genetic traits have been fine-tuned to match their environment, and the complex interactions of different communities within their ecosystem cannot be expected to magically “recover” because we have brought a “similar” species in. She seems to believe species are different brands of batteries, and as long as the voltage is the same, they may be replaced. This is ridiculous. What extinct North American cheetahs are to African cheetahs are not what AA Energizer batteries are to AA Duracell batteries.
Lastly, I think rewilding would be extremely difficult to execute sensibly. Would the large animals have to be contained behind fences? Then how much would the money would such a project cost? These are only a couple of the many questions that would need much attention.
