“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.” This statement made by Emma Marris in her book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World sums up quite simply the main idea she attempts to convey to her audience. Throughout the first two chapters, Marris provides a plethora of anecdotes and information supporting her claim that traditional views regarding untouched nature must evolve.
In chapter one, much of Marris’ focus is geared towards the fact that conventional ecologists have spent their lives studying pristine and unspoiled places, labeling these areas as true nature. At the same time, traditional conservationists channel their energy into trying to prevent nature from changing. Unfortunately, applying such static beliefs to something as dynamic as nature does not allow us to see the proverbial forest for the trees. Humans have already had such a profound effect on the environment – and for such a long time – that the pre-human baseline ecologists work so hard to revert to is becoming an impractical goal.
Marris also introduces her idea of rambunctious gardens being everywhere—parks, backyards, rooftops, traffic circles. As conservationists are becoming more receptive to this avant-garde idea, they can approach conservationism differently while still holding true to its values.
In chapter two, Marris addresses how our views of nature have changed over time. Before the 1860s, the wilderness was regarded as ‘savage’ and unsafe. It was not until Romantics such as William Wordsworth, Percy Shelly, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau lauded nature for its “awe-inspiring” and even spiritual characteristics. After the establishment of Yellowstone as a public park in 1872 and more importantly the emergence of the ‘wilderness cult’ in 1890, nature took on a more healthful reputation in the eyes of Americans. However, there were also people, such as Teddy Roosevelt, who saw wilderness as a beast to be challenged. This ‘challenge’ required hunting, making roads, and other means of diminishing nature. As these and many more individuals attempted to analyze the true meaning and value of nature, they did not realize that our ecosystems were changing faster than they could be defined.
I agree with Marris’ statement that we have “lost” nature in the sense that we are mistaken about what it truly is. Nature does not have to be untouched nor unchanging. In fact, Henry David Thoreau’s oft-quoted statement, “In wildness is the preservation of the world” strengthens the concept that if we continue to confine nature into park reserves, we are hampering its evolution and, therefore, its beauty. Contrary to orthodox beliefs, native ecosystems are not necessary any better than changed or changing ecosystems and perhaps the Yellowstone Model for preservation is a mere paradox. As Marris points out, human interaction with nature has not necessarily degraded it. Instead, as Thoreau alludes, we must try to find the middle ground between complete wilderness and complete civilization.
