Fetisher Confusion - Michael Evans

While reading Ecology of Eden by Evan Eisenberg, I met a conflict on the topic of Managers and Fetishers. As far as the concept of Managers that Eisenberg illustrates, I grasp it pretty firmly. The Managers, according to Eisenberg, think that in order to save nature they must control, or ‘manage,’ it. This seems to make sense in that they will dictate what does and does not happen to nature and can care for it like a parent for a child. The Fetishers, on the other hand, have a ideology that seems inherently flawed. From what I understand, the Fetishers believe we should melt back into the foliage, disappear into nature and give up many of our technological and cultural advances. This ideology seems to be to represent a return to Eden where humans are one with nature. As is evident, however, we have been expelled from Eden with no chance of ever truly returning. That is what expulsion means, to be forced from a place or way of life with no chance of return. Therefore, I cannot figure out why these people would advocate a return to a place/way of life that we are explicitly forbidden to return to.
I thought perhaps that they could be nonreligious people, people who didn’t believe that the story of out exile from Eden was a fact. However this theory was shot down as Eisenberg stated in the last few chapters that the Fetishers think some sort of religious revival is the only way to keep the world from being annihilated. So I am puzzled. It seems the Fetishers want to do what we cannot do at all. They appear as idealists with an unattainable dream. The futility of their vision and their argument doesn’t allow me to take them seriously. I can’t figure out how they can believe what they believe.