The Trouble with Metaphors

Our second plenary session provided a counterpoint to the first, with Emma Marris, author of the Rambunctious Garden, giving arguments for managing nature that provoked much thought for all assembled, and no doubt for those who tuned in online.

The departure point for Ms. Marris’ perspective is that “we can’t go back to [the] Garden of Eden, and it never really existed….The ecosystems of North America that we see as Edenic are a product of our management and mismanagement.” She briefly touched on arguments that landscapes of North America were managed in pre-Colombian time, and were naturally dynamic before the age of man, therefore there can be no valid historical reference point for ecological preservation.  The transition to modern time and the increasing rate of anthropogenic change was not immediately apparent in the author’s description, but perhaps was not a point that needed to be emphasized to a George Wright audience.

If we can’t go home, to the Garden of Eden, what can we do? The old goal was so neat, it was more beautiful back then, it was perfect back then. In referring to “pristine-ish” nature, if we can’t “put it back,” what goal should we use? “Picking a goal does not mean we deny the intrinsic value of nature…. It just might be in a different place.” Different goals is how we pragmatically manage. What is new is a psychological change, that we don’t see interventionist management techniques such as assisted migration and use of surrogates as last-ditch attempts. She enjoined us to be more positive and find joy in this work. “That’s why I use the gardening metaphor. Gardening is like stewardship,” except a steward doesn’t necessarily have to do anything, just keep the keys and make sure nothing bad happens. “A gardener has to get down and get dirty and intervene.”

She spoke of “novel ecosystems.” Think of them “like a weed patch, lots of introduced species that are playing around together,” she said. “Cycling nutrients, making soil” …functionally they look very similar to native ecosystems. Diversity levels in some cases meet or exceed native systems.

She acknowledged that “you can’t just go nuts with this stuff. You can’t do [just] anything. It is arrogant to say that humans can control the earth.” We need to be humble. It is not only virtuous but smart. We are not in control of the earth. It is not a conscious masterminding.

“The scope of our influence is massive. People start throwing around the term Anthropocene.” More traditional conservationists immediately see it as bad. She gave a few examples, including the Ecological Society of America conference and people saying “cities are a cancer on the earth,” and that from her perspective that doesn’t help.

The Anthropocene has to be acknowledged, and has caused moral wrongs. We cannot not act. If we decide not to manage a piece of land, we are making a decision because if we don’t act, all the other forces will act. “I think there has been a cultural prohibition within conservation from talking about any positive change that is anthropogenic.”

“What do we disagree on? I guess it is the metaphor of the garden. I find the metaphor useful.” But she hopes it will hold wild things. She emphasized that she is not talking about planting things in neat little rows; but also argued that places like Yellowstone are already managed as a garden, citing the example of intervention to manage the whitebark pine. “When we go out and remove invasive species, we are already gardening.”

“You can have historical and you can have wild, but you can’t have both at the same time.”

Many arguments of Marris, a journalist, would benefit from more scientific underpinnings. But her central point, that climate change and global human manipulation robs nature conservation of the no-action alternative, is potent. She could have done more to describe the cultural dimensions of our conservation attitudes, but her talk underscores the need to bring multi-disciplinary science to the interventions citizens are already making.

The plenary sessions of Dr. Michael Soulé and Ms. Marris provided very different views, and both will provoke thinking and reflection on the fundamental objectives of our work in parks and protected areas. It is a great example of critical professional debate and food for thought that draws us to meetings and programs of the George Wright Society.