Re-Wild, really?

I recently came across an article/advertisement for a show being done by the National Geographic Channel.  The show is about "Re-widling", or leaving society and going out into the countryside, and what you will have to do to make it in the wild.

They list four essentials for survival:
1. food
2. water
3. shelter
4.protection

I think the show was called "Live free or Die" and is won of those challenge type of shows with competitors who are recorded and evaluated on how they do.

Ya, nothing changes much, it is the same old shite on the telly and that is why I don't watch it.

The thing I find worth discussing here is the way we humans continue to think of ourselves "outside of nature".  Do we call a bee hive, or an ant hill, or a birds nest, unnatural and artificial structures, or do we call them part of the wild?  How about when a spider uses his web to catch the wind to float from one place to another, or when a seed uses the wind to carry it a distance off from the tree or when a small fish hitches a ride on a larger fish, are these unnatural occurrence or part of the wild world?

We are just another life form on this planet of countless life forms.  We all share the same requirements of environment to the degree that we all only exist on this planet.  What we do is what is natural to us.  NYC, London, or some remote village on the African continent, what happens in each of these places are examples of humans in the wild.  This is our wild.

It is true that humans are different in to the degree that we create and seem dissatisfied with the state of things around us and manipulate the rest of the planet for our own benefit, and almost always at the cost of suffering of other people and other beings.

It might be more genuine to have a show that shows how most of the human animals do getting their four requirements.  How many humans get food in a way that allows them to survive, healthfully and happily?  Current medical statistics would indicate that an ever increasing number would be booted off the show because we are eating poisonous foods.

We are creating an ever increasing water scarcity and toxicity problem.
Homes are beyond the financial reach many and do little to actually protect us from things like flooding, tornados and hurricanes.

The last thing on the list, protection, is the most distressing.  We are mostly in need of protection from other human beings, or, ourselves.  The only time we hear of humans being "attacked" by other animals is when human beings put themselves into situations that allow for this.  We play in waters were sharks thrive, or we domesticate animals and train them to be violent, and we wonder into the domain of large predators.  We also open ourselves up to smaller threats like disease by our own voluntary actions, smoking and the resulting lung cancer for instance.

How many people do you know or suspect of having weapons to defend themselves against something other than other humans?  Do you know of anybody who is worried about a bear coming down there street and breaking into their home.  I can imagine it if you live in certain places, but most people don't worry over threats from anyone other than other humans.  Our police and military are trained and focus on protecting us from each other, not from threats from other living things.

A much more prescient and informing and entertaining show might be to show how a few humans can take what all the information that is available to us now and then survive in a "wildlike" manner,  or, in a manner more like most other living beings seem to.  Most other living beings spend the better part of their time getting their food, locally and seasonally.  Most stay within a certain range of a water source, and don't corrupt it.  Most make their home or shelter in a manner that works with their surroundings and from local materials.  Most other living creatures act in a way that protects them to a limited degree from predation, but almost none wage war against another.

Seeing humans living more like the rest of the living community, but using all that we know and have access to would be interesting, and a more reasonable thing for National Geographic to be investing their and our time in.