The widely-heralded arrival of the “Anthropocene” era seems to call the existence and value of the natural world into question. Is the world prior to human alteration of it something worth preserving? Can and should we attempt to restore ecological conditions prior to human disturbance? Ecological restoration has traditionally used the past as a reference point in establishing standards and assessing the value of restored landscapes. In many landscapes, however, the traditional notion of historical fidelity provides inadequate guidance because contemporary (...) and future social, ecological, or climate contexts differ, or will differ, radically from those that historically prevailed. Thus, some scholars recommend that we move toward restoration that looks to the future instead of the past. Others propose a “narrative ethics” that accounts for the past while allowing a place to evolve in ways that fit its unfolding story. Both futuristic and narrative approaches to restoration accommodate change and acknowledge a role for social values. However, both have been criticized as overly anthropocentric, and neither is strongly action guiding. Using examples of restoration at former military sites, I consider how we might develop an ethics of ecological restoration that acknowledges change while taking account of the past. (shrink)