by Edited by George Wuerthner, Eileen Crist, and Tom Butler
Island Press, 2014
“Is the great purpose of our species to steal the lives and homes of millions of species and billions of creatures?” asks David Johns, one of the writers featured in Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth. For Johns and the others who contributed to this collection of essays, the answer is obviously no. They take on the “neogreens” in the conservation community who promote the concept that wilderness is only a social construct and the idea that humans can be rambunctious gardeners in charge of domesticating the planet.
Keeping the Wild is an anthology of essays that present a countervailing case on behalf of wild nature. There are three sections: Clashing Worldviews, Against Domestication, and The Value of the Wild. The scene of battle is well set by co-editor Tom Butler (of Vermont) in his passionate yet reasoned and clear introduction.
The essays are written by scientists, philosophers, writers, academics, and conservation activists from North and South America, Europe, and Australia. Inevitably, when twenty-two authors are focused on the same issue there is some redundancy. But the wide variety of voices keeps the reader attentive. Names that may be familiar to readers of Northern Woodlands include Terry Tempest Williams, Roderick Nash, Dave Foreman, George Wuerthner (also from Vermont), Michael Soulé, David Ehrenfeld, and Harvey Locke. They are not arguing for pristine wilderness, though we can certainly use some of that, but rather for “wild lands,” where, if human management is present, it mimics natural processes as much as is feasible. It is to a large extent self-willed. They also argue for restoration of lands degraded by human exploitation in order to reclaim something of nature’s native biodiversity and resiliency. They feel that the neo-greens should have more humility, for we have been and continue to be fallible gardeners.
In making their cases, the writers frequently cite the positions and counter the arguments made by those on the forefront of the so-called Anthropocene movement, including Peter Kareiva, Emma Maris, Stewart Brand, and Dan Botkin. These are folks who argue, essentially, that nature in the twenty-first century will be a nature that we make; we will become gods, so we might as well get good at it. If you subscribe to this premise, you should read what the other side has to say.
The so-called conservation movement has always had its differing factions, but the neogreens are opening up a major division in the ranks. They are postmodern deconstructionists. If you, like me, have been fuzzy on the meaning of this appellation, the fine essay by Harvey Locke is a must read. It behooves us all to ponder and understand the consequences of a gardened world for our humanity and for our fellow beings on this small, blue planet. Is it ethically appropriate for the behavior of one species to exercise the power of life and death over millions of others?
If I am judging the readership of Northern Woodlands correctly, the vast majority has experienced and love wild lands, but they also believe that good science-based management of some land squares with their belief in care for the Earth. I think they will find this book immensely stimulating and will add strength to that ethic.