Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth

by George Wuerthner (editor), Eileen Crist (Editor), Tom Butler (Editor)

Is it time to embrace the so-called “Anthropocene”—the age of human dominion—and to abandon tried-and-true conservation tools such as parks and wilderness areas? Is the future of Earth to be fully domesticated, an engineered global garden managed by technocrats to serve humanity? The schism between advocates of rewilding and those who accept and even celebrate a “post-wild” world is arguably the hottest intellectual battle in contemporary conservation.In Keeping the Wild, a group of prominent scientists, writers, and conservation activists responds to the Anthropocene-boosters who claim that wild nature is no more (or in any case not much worth caring about), that human-caused extinction is acceptable, and that “novel ecosystems” are an adequate replacement for natural landscapes. With rhetorical fists swinging, the book’s contributors argue that these “new environmentalists” embody the hubris of the managerial mindset and offer a conservation strategy that will fail to protect life in all its buzzing, blossoming diversity.

With essays from Eileen Crist, David Ehrenfeld, Dave Foreman, Lisi Krall, Harvey Locke, Curt Meine, Kathleen Dean Moore, Michael Soulé, Terry Tempest Williams and other leading thinkers, Keeping the Wild provides an introduction to this important debate, a critique of the Anthropocene boosters’ attack on traditional conservation, and unapologetic advocacy for wild nature.

Genres: Environment, Nonfiction, Essays, Conservation, Science, Nature

287 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 6, 2014

Reviews

[Cheryl]

Wuerthner wrote a valuable letter to the editor, High Country News, March 2020.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Humans have altered the Earth so much that scientists are actually beginning to agree that we have entered a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene. This may not be news to you- the media has given "the age of man" some serious face time. What you may not realize is that behind this term is also a widening rift in the conservation world. Largely led by Peter Karieva of the Nature Conservancy and the well-funded Breakthrough Institute, a very high profile chorus of voices, termed "the new conservationists" have arisen to pair the arrival of the age of man with a new direction for conservation and the environmental movement. In a nutshell, their argument is that we've effed it up beyond repair, so therefore all the things we have been trying to do to save the Earth (preserve parks and wildlands, restore degraded ecosystems, work to protect species from extinction and preserve biodiversity) are silly, quaint, and backwards. They argue that there never was such a thing as a pristine, unaltered Earth. Therefore, in their view, rather than try to "save" the Earth, we need to plan our use of it in such a way as to utilize its resources to benefit the greatest number of people, particularly poor people living in the third world.

As one of this book's contributors, Curt Meine points out, like any deceptive argument, the most maddening part about it is that a lot of it is true. But a lot of it is also ridiculous. They say that now that the age of man has arrived, we need to just accept it, let the polar bears die already, and start seeing the natural world as a garden over which we and only we hold dominion. Writer Emma Maris is another voice in this new conservation chorus, and her book Rambunctious Garden is often quoted (and ripped apart) in this collection of essays railing against the new conservationists and their ideas.

It's fascinating reading to a degree, but this collection got really repetitive, which made it really hard to slog through. On that note, reading this does make you feel, at least a tiny bit, like you are witnessing an obscure fight between academics. Don't get me wrong. The ideals of the new conservationists are very real and are being put on the ground in applied ways, at scale-- especially through a huge global conservation organization like TNC. However, make no mistake-- Keeping the Wild and other essays I've seen on the debate over the Anthropocene is generally high level reading that will probably only get picked up and absorbed by the most committed conservationists. I would have rated this higher had the editors been more ruthless in the editing and chosen only the best essays to feature.

[Mark Smeltz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This takes some time to get going. As with any collection of essays, some are better than others, and the initial ones in this volume are (perhaps necessarily) kind of vague and broad, since they're meant to rebut an entire ideological movement. The essays get a lot better as they gradually become more specific, but even then they are technical enough to probably not appeal to the casual reader.

But even when this book is at its most erudite and inaccessible, its message is incredibly important. Everyone should read Philip Cafaro's essay for a clear, direct, and logical refutation of the anthropocentric worldview that unfortunately dominates our culture.

Thanks again to Island Press for a review copy. Charts and certain formatting elements do not display properly on this electronic version (PDF); this may or may not happen in the retail ebook.

[TimothyMSwartz · Rating 2 out of 5]

One common criticism of edited collections like this is that they tend to be too disjointed, reflecting each author's unique interpretation of the brief or concept. Not so with this volume. This book was extremely repetitive, with nearly every essay having an introduction containing the phrase "the so-called Anthropocene", the body containing direct, yet often unsubstantiated, criticisms of Emma Marris and Peter Kareiva, and capped off with a conclusion full of dire warning about the looming demise of wilderness areas. Chapter after chapter. Section after section. The same arguments and quotes and examples and boogeymen.

I very much wanted to engage with the major arguments of the text, but found that very few of the authors ever effectively litigated their case against the neo-greens/neo-environmentalists/neo-conservationists/new greens (get your terminology straight, guys!) beyond some quick jabs and strawmen. Every chapter felt like it was just the opening arguments with flashy quotes and examples, but each stopped before the authors really embraced the more difficult work of building up a vision to fill the vacuum left by undermining that of their opponents.

With some notable exceptions (including a lovely essay "Living Beauty" by Sandra Lubarsky), this lengthy volume felt hollow.

There is no question that our planet is faced with enormous and consequential choices about how we view wilderness and nature in relation to human population growth and enterprise. Greed, waste, and abuse are rampant. Wilderness areas are under threat and need protection and expansion. But we know all this already. This book could have provided a new vision for the future, built on old and wise principles applied in fresh and insightful ways. Sadly, it largely failed to do so.

[Dean Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an anthology, and there are several brief chapters about environmentalism.
Ideally, this would be great for someone working in the field, or someone who has been an activist for years. If you are looking for information and resources this may not be for you.
I think this is more for someone who's already writing about this topical academically or freelancing for magazines.

[Elisabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book of mostly lovely essays about keeping the wild; a few complete duds, and a few standout stars. My favorite by far is the essay by Sandra Lubarsky, on beauty.

Highly recommend. If not for the 2 or 3 dud essays, it would get 5 stars.

[maddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was insightful but incredibly redundant. Would have been much better if this was a collection of 5-6 essays

[Mark Bailey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contains a lot of essays refuting the claims of Nordhaus and Shellenberger that because there are no lands that have not at least been minutely effected by man there is no more wilderness and therefore we should give up on protecting for wilderness. Michael Soule does the best job of painting the current status of conservation (versus environmentalism) and how the big conservation NGO's have mostly gone over to the land as resource for people and corporations.

Makes me glad to be the puny David at Western Watersheds Project and Wild Utah Project still fighting the Goliaths. Torrey House needs some more narratives that express the intrinsic value of the natural world. Values that are intrinsic are hard to promote compared to values that benefit humanity. Story can do it.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was torn between three and four stars. Four was what I was hoping for the book when I started, but three was the reality. This book suffers from some of the weaknesses that can plague essay collections, repetitiveness being the most common in this collection.

That said, this book is still a valuable and worthwhile challenge to the new conservationists. The authors repeatedly emphasize that those who value wildlands do not do so because they think them "pristine." I think they are largely right about this. The arguments that challenge the techo-optimism among the "eco-pragmatists" are also strong in this collection.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5 I think this book is best for professionals in related fields or (most likely) for college students needing to cite sources in a paper. While the ideas are interesting, it's not really a book that you want to sit down and read straight through. I've picked it up (and put it down) several times over the past year.

[Jake Berlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

a variety of compelling points supporting a broad and important argument, although it does get a bit redundant, and with some of the essays of such a higher quality than the others, it undoubtedly could have been significantly shorter.

[Graeme Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book reviews interesting ideas of how to tackle the ever-growing problem of climate change and global warming, but could be more 'user-friendly' by using language that the average reader can follow.

[Lolo S. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tough read. The essays are inconsistent in their draw.