Human cultural ecology is distinct from the natural ecologies from which it arose. Human cultural ecology has been extremely successful, for the most part, in promoting the adaptive and reproductive success of the human species, and in its diversification to a wide range of niches in the world. Indeed, its open and constructive capacities has resulted in the development of entirely new niches and even whole ranges of niches that did not previously exist before the invention and construction of culture. 

But this success in our shared history has not come without a heavy price being extracted from our natural environment. Modern Homo sapiens may have refined the technologies of ecocide, but they were not the first to invent or utilize such technologies, and we may reach deeply into our shared heritage to find examples of the mass slaughter of life and the systematic destruction of entire ecosystems on behalf of maintaining a growing human system.

This success has been achieved by means of social organization, the application of technological systems in shaping, controlling and managing the environment, and in terms of anthropogenic factors like symbolic language, culture, and mind. We may find counter-examples among many species of similar forms of adaptation, particularly of social systems, but these are analogies of parallel evolution of form and function, and not homologies of shared design features or genetic coda.

It is clear that cultural and natural ecology have been out of balance, and the former has been advanced largely at the expense and exploitation of the latter. The sense of imbalance, or disequilibrium between cultural and natural ecologies is in the long run bound to have negative consequences for both forms of ecology, to the extent that cultural ecology is basically bound to and dependent upon natural ecology, and to the extent that natural ecologies are becoming increasingly influenced by and under the control of human cultural ecologies. The long-term consequence of course, as is evident with Global Warming and other global trends, is the rapid destruction and disruption of natural ecologies, almost upon every level at which they occur. These are long-term consequences for which we have known precedents, and, unfortunately, we do not have to wait very much longer to bear witness to their dire consequences.

The challenged faced by humankind is to bring back into balance, upon a new level, both natural and cultural ecologies, which means primarily the refashioning and reshaping of human cultural ecologies in a manner that will be less destructive and exploitative of natural ecologies. First and foremost is the effort to rapidly bring human population growth to control, even to a level of negative growth. Secondly, is to curtail and circumscribe the activities of human systems and communities, in terms that are most relevant to the future development of natural ecologies.

We are faced with a kind of Easter Island Scenario. The planet earth is a very large but not unlimited Easter Island. There is no convenient or suitable way off the island, at least for most people. We are wholly dependent upon the resources of the island for our survival and success, and yet by our very success in exploiting the resources of the island we are jeopardizing our future on that island. Of course, if we cut down all the trees on the island in order to transport our giant Moa heads, and we denude the island of all productive vegetation as a consequence ultimately of too great a human population, then we run headlong into the problem of the breakdown of natural ecologies for the sake of maintaining an imbalanced human ecology. We are then reminded of the Malthusian dilemmas of natural population increase that outstrips its environmental carrying capacities.

Altering human adaptive ecology to be more in line with a natural ecological framework begins with the individual in the home, but does not end there. Certainly in many systems it is not just undesirable, but downright socially self-destructive, to abnegate the drive and symbols of affluence by which modern societies are based and regulated, even if these patterns towards affluence are directly averse to the challenge of developing saner and safer human ecologies. I have learned this by personal experience. It takes organized corporate institutional structures to effectively implement new designs that encourage and entail alternative forms of human adaptation. Only by means of a ground swell, grass-roots movement, a "human tidal wave" might industry and government be encouraged to adopt alternative and less exploitative practices. If everyone boycotted those things known to be the most environmentally destructive, including large vehicles, etc, then certainly industry would be forced to alter their designs to suit public demand and taste. But cultivating such a form of resistance is difficult, especially when vast amounts of capital are spent just in advertising designed to convince people that they "need" big vehicles and the stuff that anti-environmental industry thrives upon.

It becomes in a sense, therefore, a kind of war, made up of many battles. The first battles are with ourselves in our local environment--recycling, eating lower on the trophic level, walking instead of driving, making fewer babies, working for the environment rather than against it, etc. It extends out to our local and areal communities--creating awareness, setting examples, participating and even initiating programs that come to rescue the environment or promote awareness of the environment. Finally, it extends to regional and national levels, and ultimately, to international and global levels of awareness.

We can conclude this overwrought essay by suggesting that those who are not only a part of the problem but the primary reason of the problem, cannot be counted upon to change themselves voluntarily, or to adopt policies that will be in reverse or adverse to their own established interests that are consonant with the established order of things in the world. The solution cannot come from those with power, but only from those who can and must empower themselves. The kind of revolution of human ecology I'm referring to is ultimately a kind of pacifist revolution, a concerted effort to deny to those who are in power and who are a big part of the problem the means of dehumanization and violence that they use to force their motives and get their way in the world.