Assignment: By analyzing works of anthropologist Helga Vierich, consider the question: What is the relationship between anthro-ecology and anti-civ/wildist thought?

Imagine you are a fish. For the purpose of this analogy you may choose to be any fish you desire. Personally, I tend to believe humans are an invasive species of the most destructive kind — therefore, I’ll pretend to be a lionfish. Now imagine you’re swimming around in a fish tank of the most excellent quality. The water temperatures are perfectly stabilized. The water is clear and unpolluted. Every day you’re fed your favorite meal, and you’re kept well-nourished. You have no natural predators. The tank contains all your favorite plants, structures for hiding, and is even aesthetically visually pleasing to accommodate your tastes. In fact, your life is so comfortable that when you look out of the glass of your fish tank at the poor slobs who inhabit the other world which is not yours, you pity them terribly. The fish tank has been specifically constructed to accommodate your needs. So much so that if any other species were introduced into your world, it’s very likely they would either be killed by your environment, or — in the case of Mr. Lionfish — stabbed to death by your poison spikes.

While humans may not physically resemble fish, Homo sapiens might be about as smart as tanked fish when it comes to their profligacy toward the only fishbowl we have to live in. (Although honestly that’s unfair to fish.) Anthro-ecology adds an interesting perspective to the conversation of anti-civ/wildism by exploring the origins of fishbowl mentality.

Essentially, anthro-ecology is a theory that attempts to explain why and how humans have carved out their own ecological niche into which every other thing, both living and inanimate, must subordinate. It is the human global terrarium through which all other species have been integrated, both through natural and artificial selection. Our own personalized fishbowl.

Vierich’s idea is that humans have over-adapted to the ecological pressures faced by early H. sapiens. The advent of farming and cultivation, and presumably animal husbandry, helped our ancestors to create what she calls an anti-fragile environment (AFE). These AFE’s increased the chance of our survival exponentially, not only by ensuring a sustainable, abundant food supply, but by instituting increased social controls, leading to better security, both in the genetic pool and for reproduction.

Put another way, our ancestors found a way to circumvent, and in some cases completely avoid Earth’s forms of natural population control. Predators, starvation, and disease no longer remain as checks and balances to the population density.

Vierich also touches on the evolution of the human brain. She postulates that cooperation and diplomacy came about, not as the result of the rise of civilization, but as an evolutionary trait. According to Vierich, people have evolved to be more open to creating bonds and relationships based on shared boundaries and ideals, rather than simply by virtue of bloodlines or kinship. This helps promote the sharing of wisdom from the crowd and prevents the stagnation of the species. Presumably this is because having wider connections increases the opportunity for genetic exchange and information flow. So, contrary to Darwinism, interconnected human cultural systems played a more important role in human survival and evolution than strife and warfare (or survival of the fittest). This would suggest that intra-species violence has negative impacts on the probability of species survival, something which should be obvious.

That’s not to say, however, that Vierich doesn’t see the usefulness in human conflict which falls short of violence. In fact, she believes that certain forms of conflict and strife actually occur as part of the natural brain function to ensure that sedentary populations don’t’ get too comfortable and begin to stagnate. She cites the example of how people are constantly changing their affiliations with certain people or groups of people based on reasons most of us might view as trivial or nonsensical. The idea implied is that humans will use ideological or moral conflicts as a justification to seek out new relationships and associations. Then, of course, it goes back to a diversification of genetics and wisdom. Again, the benefits being prima facie.

In line with this thought Vierich believes that through evolution of the prefrontal cortex (“the active center of rational thought, where alternatives and consequences are considered”) humans have developed the ability to convert rage, through language, into a vehicle for moral consensus and cooperation. Again, not the result of human domestication, but of evolution. Thus, aggressive behavior is usually systematically disabled by larger groups willing to fight off bullies, who are themselves usually led by courageous and rebellious individuals. Interestingly enough, this would seem to suggest that, given the current state of human affairs, H. sapiens might be in the process of de-evolving. This would give us the distinction of being the only species in history to reach a climactic evolutionary level, and then begin to de-evolve down the other end of the horseshoe.

Overall, in terms of anthro-ecology’s symbiosis to anti-civ and wildism theories, the theories aren’t necessarily incompatible, although there is much to be desired. There are many logical conclusions which should have been reached by Vierich which I had to fill in myself. It’s also puzzling why, at times, Vierich seems to adopt an apologetic attitude toward modern civilization despite the recognition that we’ve gone too far in believing in the AFE of our systems. If our belief in the invulnerability of our AFEs will blind us to the “coming disorder”, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that something be done about it before it occurs. Yet, Vierich stops short of offering even a hint as to a possible solution. Similar to Jared Diamond, Vierich spends massive amounts of intellectual capital explaining how we got here, why we might all be doomed, and then offers absolutely no viable mechanism through which we can even begin to think about fixing the problem.

Anthro-ecology offers an interesting look at the journey H. sapiens has taken to arrive at the global terrarium we call civilization. But, without some form of integration with anti-civ/wildism perspectives, its usefulness is minimal at best. The information Vierich compiles has been theorized elsewhere, although perhaps not in exactly the same language. It’s almost as though Vierich believes she’s stumbled upon something revolutionary. But statements suggesting that ritual activity and storytelling used to venerate nature are a large part of human culture show that Vierich is woefully antiquated in some of the notions she has about modern human culture.

Helga Vierich, like many modern, domesticated humans, is starting to wake up to the problems of modern civilization. And, considering that it’s only the survival of our entire species on the line, I don’t think I’d be wrong to suggest that someone may need to douse her with a bucket of ice water before she continues to dilute the conversation any further with useless academic drivel.