Our land was once part of a pristine wilderness. We hope to recreate that environment, to erase all traces of human interference with nature. Just kidding. It’s true that the land was once “untouched,” but that was long, long ago. Much of the “wilderness” around here is at best second growth boreal forest. The early history of Fairbanks – building and heating the town, mining the hills, stoking the boilers of the steamboats – took a lot of wood, and rearranged mountains of earth. Before that, Alaska Natives hunted and fished throughout the Tanana Valley. This area has seen the impact of humanity for millennia, and there’s no way we could ever return a little over an acre of it to its “original” state.
We certainly weren’t thinking “pristine” as we hauled car parts, balled-up, rusty wire fencing, miles of electrical wire and pieces of bone (not human, thankfully) out of our planting area.
We are not trying to get to untouched. But if we are not trying to restore our bit of subarctic suburbia to its primeval grandeur, how can I say we’re “making a better world”? Might seem like hubris.
First, I don’t buy the idea that nature is necessarily at its best without human impact. I also don’t think “dominion over the Earth” means we should develop, pave, or make junkyards out of every blessed parcel of land we can. In his book Second Nature¸ Michael Pollan suggests that pitting nature against culture (human activity) creates a false dichotomy. We are, after all, a part of nature, not apart from it. In a garden, the influence of the gardener is thoughtful, intentional and blatant. We protect plants that might otherwise fail to thrive. We plant stuff we want to grow in rows or beds. We weed and water (and weed and water some more). Pollan calls a garden “a middle ground between nature and culture, a place that is at once of nature and unapologetically set against it.”
When I say we are making a better world (in a tiny way) by making this farmlet, I mean that by making our influence visible and useful, we are saving that land from the hidden forces that were slowly turning it in to a junkyard, and from the overt force of the developers who at best would have built a multi-family apartment there, and at worst would have turned it more rapidly into a junkyard. I don’t believe that our cultivation of the land will create an eyesore. We are removing trees, but not all. We are planting new trees as well, and the new ones and the ones we don’t take down will have a better chance to thrive. The dead wood that makes the property a fire hazard that is difficult to navigate will go – but its nutrients will be returned to the soil, in the form of mulch. We’ll have to protect our plantings from moose and rabbits, but those creatures will also continue to use the land. (It’s kinda hard to stop them!)
We’ll be ripping out non-native invasive species, like dandelions and purple vetch. And, of course, we’ll be feeding ourselves with the products of our labor, happily increasing the nutrient value of our food and the quality of life of our food animals while reducing our dependence on shipped in food and the related use of fossil fuels required to get that food here. Whew – that’s a heck of a sentence! But it sure sounds like a better world to me. 🙂
- Some of our happy food animals – not little yellow fluffballs anymore!