Emma Marris articulates the idea of “rewilding” in her book, Rambunctious Garden. According to her, “rewilding posits that the main factors necessary to keep ecosystems resilient and diverse are the regulation provided by large, top-of-the-food-chain predators; the room for these predators to do their work; and connections between predator ranges so they can meet, mate, and maintain a healthy diverse gene pool” (Marris 60). Essentially, it is a conservation endeavor to create prehistoric ecosystems devoid of human influence. Ecologists can observe ecosystems before humanity. This would be done by reintroducing particular species back into a specific environment. These species would be predators so that less room is made for “medium-sized predators like raccoons or snakes, who then expand and put significant pressure on little creatures such as songbirds” (60). As a result, there would be less instances of extinction.
Although rewilding seems like the ideal solution, it is not scientifically feasible or ethnically sound. The fact of the matter is that we, humans, have altered the entire world. According to Bill McKibben, “all we can do is make it less bad than it will otherwise be” (55). Marris also states that “there can never be any more of this kind of nature, because once touched by humans, it is ruined for eternity” (55). We can try to better our ecosystems, but we cannot reverse the damage.
Marris gives us examples – introducing cheetahs to Arizona or elephants to Missouri. These animals would be isolated from humans and carefully managed under fenced areas. I believe that the amount of scrutiny and intense management in these areas defeats the whole purpose of creating “pristine wilderness” through rewilding. This idea takes human intervention to a new level. In addition, these animals would be a threat to people who live in nearby towns and farms. Rewilding would make these places more dangerous. Furthermore, the ecosystems today have changed. Existing species have adapted and evolved from the past. Results of reintroducing these species would be unpredictable.
The idea of rewilding is unethical because humans are essentially deciding whether a species get to live or not. Marris points out an incident where Vera saw a weak and starving calf. He then called a member of the reserve to shoot it in an effort to end the calf’s misery (66). How can we be sure our decisions are correct? I believe it is not right to kill an animal just to put it out of misery. The right thing to do would be to feed it. And by reintroducing certain animals in particular areas, the other animals of the ecosystems would decrease in population. Moreover, Donlan says something very hypocritical and alarming. If an introduced species becomes invasive, “…we can kill ’em again” (65).
It is with no doubt that we live in a human dominated world. The battle of man versus nature cannot be solved with rewilding. If done so, we are disrupting existing ecosystems even more. Many ecologists believe that rewilding would yield beneficial results. In reality, it is hard to know. Hence, attempting to create ecosystems absent of human influence on today’s world would be unrealistic.
