Rewilding is Rewiring
The emerging environmental conservation method, also known as rewilding, was first introduced by David Foreman in 1998. In the human-dominated era, informally termed the Anthropocene, is driving mass extinctions. The environmental degradation and vanishment of megafauna is a result of large-scale habitat alteration and fragmentation due to industrial production and economic development. With economic centric society, it externalizes the detrimental costs of perpetual growth. Conservationists and environmentalists are calling for rewilding through the act of restoring a location to its “original” ecological state by reintroducing the ecosystem functions before human disturbance. The process of rewilding can have a significant and unpredictable impact on the biodiversity and stability of the ecosystem. However, it faces the challenge of stakeholder conflict, uncertain outcomes, invasive species, and land requirements. These barriers are preventing faster rewilding.
Rewilding was based on ecological theories of trophic cascade where the top predator in a food chain has cataract with those organisms beneath it. Evidence shows the process of rewilding can restore flora and fauna of that given location. The process of rewilding was put into practice in large-scale places like the Yellowstone National Park. Due to the high activity of hunting, it drove the bison and wolves population away from fulfilling its role as a part of that ecosystem. The wolves community plays a crucial role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. During the 70 years of the disappearance of the wolf population, the deer community grew exponentially due to the lack of predators (wolves) to control its population. This led to over gazing and vegetation lost at the Yellowstone National Park. However, when the wolves were reintroduced in 1995, they again controlled the behavior of the deer population. By pushing the deers into certain areas, it allowed other areas of the park to regenerate. Bare valley sides quickly became forests of aspen and willow and cottonwood. The vegetation helped stabilize riverbanks and create little pools for niche species. If rewilding was used in a similar process to help restore the functions of an ecosystem to help raise the biodiversity of native and future animals. There has to be an understanding of the effect of trophic cascades when attempting to apply rewilding on a large scale concerning human and nature boundaries. In other words, rewilding of megafauna should also have a limitation due to the existing man-made establishments (settlement areas). The challenge is finding the balance for restoration in the current condition of today’s society.
In places such as National Parks, rewilding is possible due to its regulation that protects wildlife and its ability to control human’s experience of wilderness. However rewilding in areas that have small patches of nature scattered across the country, such as Britain, is much more difficult. Land ownership, especially by those who earn income off the land, is one of the many barriers that make the benefit of rewilding unobtainable. With rewilding, it takes time and patience. But in a world that constantly moves at the pace of economic development, the process of rewilding with no time, patience, or regulations that favor environmental protection could not be sustained. As explained in the event of the restoration of the Yellowstone National Park, regeneration was possible due to the lack of settlement made by the deer community. But in areas where its human-dominated, rewilding has to occur in a limited and slower pace. In Ayutthaya, Thailand, there’s evidence of how the Earth regenerated and adapted to the man-made establishment (Buddhist temple). Roots from the trees grew around the Buddha's head during the period when the temple lay abandoned and overgrown. That period allowed nature to grow without the disturbance of humans. When the human value remains in a capitalist economy, the dependency on natural resources will be infinite until there’s nothing left to possess. But when is it too late for the Earth to regenerate? When will the human species sacrifice the pace of its development for the well-being of the planet and the livelihood of those that occupy this planet?
The relationship between Man and Nature has evolved as Man becomes more adaptive to its surrounding environment. During neo-colonialism, nature was often associated with danger and the unknown, creating a barrier for Man to possess the “free gift.” Through technological innovations and domestication of Nature, Man began to utilize and exploited Nature to his own benefit. Practices such as agriculture were introduced through colonization, exposing the untouched land with livestock that damages the quality of the soil. It is prevalent that the agriculture sector contributes to a variety of effects on the environment. Contributing 25% of the annual GHG, according to the WRI. Following the increased global commercialization of goods and the industrial revolution, this further encouraged the exploitation of Earth and its resources. The continuum of possession and extractivism has stray humans even further from nature. Although the exploitation of Earth has led to our understanding of the development of life and Earth’s structure, it reshapes the value of nature with economic and political motives.
The concept of rewilding, as explained by Coronon, is beyond the restoration of nature but as well as restoring the relationship between Man and Nature. The attempt of Man to connect wildlife and humans can still be demonstrated in “conquering nature” due to corruptive practices and altering their initial motives. Through the entertainment establishment of zoos and “sanctuary,” this is an “attempt” to restore the connection. However, the treatment of wild animals behind cages does not fit with rewilding. The adaptation of these animals behind cages are associated with the dependency from humans rather than on its original ecosystem. The question lies in the limitation of rewilding. The underlying paradigm of consumption and production remains to be the center of the U.S. economy and politics, which influences the social norms on wilderness and shaping the experience that humans have with it. Without proper policies and regulations, rewilding can not occur on its own. With the push back from stakeholders for their property, rewilding is limited to certain areas. Therefore calling for rewilding only suits the conditions that would allow the regulatory limitation of human interaction with nature to provide time and space for nature to regenerate. This could occur in places in the agriculture sector due to its large piece of land. By reducing agricultural practices and pouring public money toward traditional practices by reintroducing herbivores to the land, it can trigger extraordinary natural processes.
The concept of rewilding is obtainable when we begin to reframe our understanding of wilderness and nature. Critiquing the social norms that are greatly intertwined with neoliberalism in light of conserving the ecosystem will be crucial to moving from anthropocentric to ecocentric perspective.
