restoring the wild

3 files changed, 39 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/bibliography.bib b/bibliography.bib
index 1c14d80..8df0bdc 100644
--- a/bibliography.bib
+++ b/bibliography.bib
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+@book{restoring-the-wild,
+    title={Restoring the Wild},
+    subtitle={Rewilding Our Skies, Woods and Waterways},
+    author={Dennis, Roy},
+    date={2022-03-17},
+    publisher={HarperCollins Publishers},
+    address={London},
+}
+
 @book{cornerstones,
     title={Cornerstones},
     subtitle={Wild Forces That Can Change Our World},
diff --git a/log.md b/log.md
index c66d265..e9aa8d0 100644
--- a/log.md
+++ b/log.md
@@ -6,6 +6,31 @@ author: Joe Carstairs
 
 ## 2026-05-13
 
+### @{restoring-the-wild}
+
+My general impression of this book is that reintroducing species is about
+negotiating with the relevant interests, working hard on the ground, and
+developing a mix of personal, community, and institutional relationships. He
+hardly seems to mention grand ideals much at all, utopic or dystopic or
+anything. Catastrophism is nowhere to be seen.
+
+When I read @{regeneration}, I thought it wasn't relevant because it isn't
+apocalyptic. Seeing the same thing again, once again written by someone with
+lots of experience of successful conservation work, I think it is not a
+coincidence and highly relevant. These writers don't use the dominant
+catastrophic framing of green issues, because it doesn't work for them. And the
+key reason it doesn't work for them is because it de-emphasises the role of
+private interests and flattens people into an imaginary collective interest. But
+in order to get anything done, they have to put real private interests first.
+They have to abandon catastrophic rhetoric, because in their world, those
+narratives don't work for them. Catastrophic narratives, whatever they do, don't
+function to get things done. They perhaps serve better as a tribal identity
+marker for urban, middle-class people whose real need is to be seen to have
+rightthink. This could play a big role in my argument: the function of green
+catastrophism is NOT to motivate effective action, as we can see, the people who
+ARE taking effective action are avoiding catastrophic narratives because they
+obscure the role of interest, which is essential to getting things done.
+
 ### @{cornerstones}
 
 There was a cracking bit of narrative in the last chapter. Big takeaways:
diff --git a/scrapbook.md b/scrapbook.md
index 8f5d146..30bebf5 100644
--- a/scrapbook.md
+++ b/scrapbook.md
@@ -29,6 +29,11 @@ author: Joe Carstairs
 
 ## Evidence that catastrophic green rhetoric obstructs appropriate responses to ongoing harms
 
+- @{regeneration} and @{restoring-the-wild} demonstrate that conservationists
+  eschew catastrophic narratives, and I think this is because such narratives
+  obscure the importance of private interest, which is essential for these
+  people to achieve their goals
+
 ## Evidence that catastrophic green rhetoric justifies violence and authoritarianism
 
 ## Examples of green rhetoric in which the audience is blamed or assumed to have power over the problem