Accepting a Tamed Wilderness

<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Field.jpg">Petritap</a>/Wikimedia

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Rambunctious Garden
Emma Marris
Bloomsbury

Imagine an untouched stream. If you’re picturing a tortuous channel with high banks, environmental journalist Emma Marris will tell you how wrong you are. Almost everything we think of as natural has been altered by humans, she argues. In the case of the winding stream, the high banks are probably a relic from seventeenth century mill dams, and we have only come to think of them as natural over centuries of environmental amnesia. Marris insists that if nature is impure, this calls for a new approach to conservation.

For her manifesto out this week from Bloomsbury, Rambunctious Garden, Marris trots from Hawaii to Yellowstone National Park to Poland in search of fresh conservation styles. Each spot illustrates a different set of environmental priorities, and Marris uses them to prove one of her central points: that wildly different ecosystem management styles can exist on the same planet. In fact, we need to try strategy we can think of in order to find out what works.

Deep in tourist-tamed Yellowstone, Marris complicates our ideas about preserved wilderness: She finds a park visitor “devouring nature as he polished off a Dairy Queen blizzard. Welcome to Yellowstone, the wildest place in the lower forty-eight.” In wry and vivid descriptions, Marris gives her readers a laugh while grounding her abstract arguments. She shows us how even our paragons of wilderness are tempered by tourists.

Marris also reveals the literary roots of our stubborn ideas about the wild. Henry David Thoreau taught us to make a distinction between city and wilderness from his outpost beside Walden Pond. The problem is, we’ve taken the dichotomy too far. Now, we miss the forest for the trees. Or rather, we miss the urban wilderness for our too-perfect ideas about pristine nature. Contrary to our ideal, it is possible to see nature in our biggest metropolises, “bees whizzing down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan,” if we pay close enough attention.

Jetting to Europe, Marris tours her readers through Bialowieza Forest, a former hunting ground in the 15th century that straddles the Polish and Belgian border. This European Eden shows how managed parks can have an all-too-human history. In World War I, the 580-square-miles of forest swapped hands from Russia to German politician Hermann Goring, who “took it over as his own personal playground.” It came at a high cost, too. He expelled the local villagers in the forest and ordered large numbers of them murdered. “Their corpses were left inside the woods.” Marris uses all her examples to drive her ultimate point: “Our fingerprints are everywhere.”

But Marris doesn’t just dwell in the imperfections of the past. She also offers forward-looking innovations. However, the “novel ecosystems” she extolls are only possible when we broaden our definition of nature to include human interference. In Hawaii, Marris traipses the Big Island’s jungles with an ecology grad student to show us how formerly evil “invasive” plant species can be harmless. There, Marris and the student find “barrels, wire, car parts, and whole burned-out cars,” but they still see the ecosystem as salvageable. They also welcome Australian ironwood, Indian sword ferns, and American trumpet trees—invaders that work together to make a lush ecosystem. “The idea that a bunch of random plants from hither and yon could convincingly impersonate a real ecosystem rather than collapse into species-poor and poorly functioning wastelands has been markedly hard to swallow.”

To help old-school ecologists swallow Marris’ controversial ecosystems, her book borders on repetitive. But her examples drive her point home: No longer should we strive for the impossible ideal of restoring a pristine wilderness. Instead, conservationists should take a grab-bag approach: throw in assisted migration with a touch of park management and urban gardening. “There is no one best goal.” In short, there’s no way to restore an untouched earth, so let’s start touching it in the right ways.

Rambunctious Garden will be released on August 30 by Bloomsbury USA.


If you buy a book using a Bookshop link on this page, a small share of the proceeds supports our journalism.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate