Add new comment

I have a couple of questions on this. I agree that fire, rather than agriculture, seems to have been the first human invention that set us on the course towards the invasive colonizing species we are today. However, is it possible that although our natural habitat and lifeway was equatorial and herbivorous, our shift to hunter-gatherers, though initially unnatural, led to adaptations that make it more natural now? Not that eating meat is necessary, as the science you've pointed out ensures that it's not. But rather that we are adapted to living in habitats that were not originally natural for us, and therefore our wild presence would no longer be unnatural; that it's possible for us to be connected and intimate with the land in a northern climate even though winter dominates much of the year and our nakedness and herbivorous origins make it impossible to live there without tools, animal flesh, and animal skin/fur.

An example I think would be how we evolved naked and herbivorous near the equator, where nakedness was natural for heat exchange, dark skin protected us from the sun's rays, and the landscape was diverse enough and warm enough year round to provide adequate nutrition without animal flesh. But as we adopted fire and meat and other cooked foods after our scavenging period, and the tools to procure them, we were able to move to habitats and climates that would otherwise be inhospitable. So by the time some of our species reached places like what is now northern Europe, they required shelters and clothes made of animal furs, and a diet heavily based on meat, and tools and inventions to procure meat, and fire to cook it and keep warm. Because they didn't evolve in that habitat, they had to take the adaptions to the environment from other animals who had them, like the fur, or the meat of those animals because there wasn't year round plant material in sufficient type, quantity, and diversity.

Though we were thus initial invasive and dominating in this sense, as time went on, the landscape adapted to our presence as much as we adapted to its. Wherever we moved, massive die-offs followed, as animals that had not co-evolved with us were suddenly faced with our predation and domination. But after those die-offs, we seem to have found equilibrium in those landscapes, where we thrived and the landscape was undegraded by our presence for thousands of years until the advent of agriculture and the encroachment of civilization.

In the case of northern Europeans, their dark skin moved to what we now consider white skin due to adaptations to ensure adequate sunlight absorption for vitamin d production. But we never evolved fur for warmth, a layer of thermos-regulating fat, or claws and teeth for carnivory. We didn't evolve those because we buffered our evolution from them through the use of tools and inventions. There's no selective pressure to evolve fur in a cold environment if you're kept warm by fire and fur. There's no selective pressure to evolve claws to hunt if you invent spears and knives and traps. But the things we can't buffer against, such as sunlight absorption, or gut length and internal physiology, seem have to adapted to this new environment.

Now if those of us of European heritage, with white skin, were to be truly wild again, we'd either have to live in the north where our white skin is most suitable, but which would require continued use of animals for fur and food, and the tool of fire for cooking it and for warmth, or we'd have to live in an equatorial habitat like we evolved to, but then our white skin would be a liability, and even hinder our ability to survive.

Our invasiveness caused partial adaptations to new unnatural environments, while our tools and inventions buffered us from full adaptation. So do we really belong anywhere now? In your opinion, does fire, though originally a tool that led to invasiveness and conquest, have a place in wildness now because we evolved into our current species using it? Is it really human supremacy to choose to live in northern climates even post-civ given that, although originally unnatural human terrain, we evolved to those places after moving to them, and the land-bases there adapted to our presence?

And what is your opinion on how people of white skin could truly be wild again, and accept human ranges rather than world presence, given that our partial adaption to the north in skin melatonin but non-adaptation in the form of fur and fat, kind of renders us unnatural in every environment, even the original human habitats we evolved from? And if partial but incomplete adaptation can occur through movement of place, making us unnatural tenants of any landscape without the use of some tools and inventions that ultimately mediate us from wildness, couldn't it be that our foray into meat eating, though originally unnatural, has led to the same situation, where now after hundreds of thousands of years of being a part of the human diet, some amount of animal products for some cultures at least can be beneficial, if not slightly necessary, in a wild situation without civ and agriculture and processed food, as we've partially adapted to them without the full adaptations of claws and fangs and short intestinal tracts and full immunity to atherosclerosis?

How do we deal with the legacy of our planetary colonization when its inception was so long ago that we have made partial adaptations to this unnatural state, and the land in many cases has adapted to us as well, to the point where what was once unnatural is no longer definitively so? Even the burning of forests for field and forest edges, while a form of domination over land and plants and animals conducted by hunter-gatherers, over time has led to adaptations on the part of the land and animals and fire regimes, so much so that once they were stopped and allowed to rewild, thanks to indigenous displacement by Europeans but before being plowed over, the landscape suffered. Of course a new equilibrium would be found given enough unhindered time, but my point is that maybe our original unnaturalness in some aspects of our relationship to the land ceased to be unnatural once we and the land-base co-adapted to the new lifeway. And maybe now it is no longer correct to say that our natural human habitat is equatorial, or that our only natural wild diet should be 100% vegan.