The title, “Humans VERSUS Nature”, sets the tone: Headrick wants to systematically highlight the human plundering of nature from the very beginning of human history: “Since the appearance of Homo sapiens, the motivation to take as many resources from the environment as technology allows has been a human characteristic.” And, of course, there is enough evidence of this ‘predator’ attitude throughout history. Headrick lists it in reasonable detail, in an overview that perfectly follows the chronology of human history. In that sense, this is certainly meritorious.
But there are some downsides. For example, Headrick fails to highlight the ideological basis of this human plundering behavior: the role of religions and secular beliefs (like the ideology of progress) that repeatedly underline the supremacy of man and promote the instrumental use of nature. Every now and then he also seems to go a bit populist, with a lot of speculation about the impact of human actions on its surrounding environment, or – conversely – the impact of nature (volcanic eruptions, epidemics, cooling and warming of the climate..) on human societies. By that I don't mean there's no impact at all, on the contrary, but it is very risky to establish real causal relations. And it seems as if Headrick with some sarcasm hints to the revenge that nature takes on humans: “nature is not a passive victim but has agency and will play a role in the environment of the future as it has in the past.” Of course, this is an open door (the corona epidemic that broke out after the publication of this book is tangible proof of this). But Headrick's underlying negative tone is – in my opinion- very one-sided and too polemical: as if humans and nature can only live in opposition, while reality rather shows a picture of how far humans and nature have complemented each other in many areas and continue to complement each other. The epilogue also shows that Headrick had a particular goal with this book: to sharpen the awareness of the dangers that our own behavior poses for our survival; the author even formulates a whole program to avert the greatest danger. And of course, he's right to worry about this and to look for solutions. But I don't like to see an historical work completely framed by this presentist point of view; it causes too much myopia and anachronism. In that sense, this is more an example of committed historiography than a detached and nuanced approach. It has merit, for sure, but it comes with a caveat.