Add new comment

“What are the natural human habitat limits? Is it not anthropocentric to think you have a right to live wherever you want? Why don’t you have to abide by wild’s invisible walls regulated by food opportunities and temperatures? Why not live under the sea if you want to. In space if you want to? That returning to wild habitat is not a part of anprim reveals a human supremacy that nixes return to their wildness altogether.”

This is where Ria starts to go off the deep end. If anything may be labeled anthropocentric, it is the notion that archaic humans could have or should have “chosen” not to leave equatorial climates. Competition for resources will drive any organism to expand into new territory. This expansion is curtailed only when the organism reaches the limits of its viable habitat range. Ranges differ from species to species, and prior to a few new technological advancements and physical adaptations,, the ecological range for Homo Sapiens was limited mainly to very specific habitats in equatorial Africa. Humans remained in those niche habitats not because we chose to, but because no other alternative existed. We were contained by natural forces.

Once fire was domesticated, expansion became a forgone conclusion. It wasn’t a matter of if humans began migrating, but when. Biology dictates this. If a species has the capacity to move into new areas and maintain a breeding population there, it will do so. Ecosystems have carrying capacities that allow for a certain number of individuals from a given species, and no more. Every species, however, has encoded within it the biological imperative to multiply. Faced with the invisible wall that habitat carrying capacity represents, then the only way this imperative can be fulfilled is through expansion. Period.

The argument, therefore, that humans “ought” to stay put, is tantamount to saying that humans ought to make a conscious choice to ignore our biological imperative. This, ironically, is about as anthropocentric as it gets. If Ria were being intellectually honest, she would say that evolution made a mistake, and write off humanity in its entirety. If one sets about insisting that humans shouldn’t have migrated, there is no practical difference between this and saying that humans should not have become humans. In which case, the argument should not be against what WE have done, and are doing, but against what NATURE has done, and continues to do. But then there would be no infidels to blame, and nobody would have reason to pretend they are the valiant force for light in the darkness.