...

Harvesting Hogzillas: Feral Pigs and the Engineering Ideal by Abraham Gibson explores the nature of engineering by the historical example of domesticated and feral pigs in the United States. Understanding domestication as a long engineering process, we can see how engineering projects are messy, involve social coordination, and competing parties and interests (Gibson 2021). After a summary of his essay, I will analyze his integration of history and philosophy: Gibson frames history through the lens of a long engineering project.

Pigs were introduced into the Americas by European colonialists and deemed so valuable that they were granted protected status (Gibson 2021, 62). While northern America adhered to a "goal-oriented" engineering strategy (what I understand as controlled breeding), the American South used an "open range" strategy, allowing pigs to roam free on public lands (Gibson 2021, 63). Changing traits in these pig populations, if attempted at all, involved introducing new pigs into the roaming population (Gibson 2021, 63). But treating pigs as "open range" animals, even with attempts to claim ownership, led to their mass proliferation, or "swarm[ing] like vermin on earth." (Gibson 2021, 63). Nor was it easy to "improve" pigs, as they did in the North with controlled breeding, when "mixed" populations roamed around (Gibson 2021, 64). But "open range" strategies of raising livestock were essential to low-class southern society, and thus difficult to discontinue (Gibson 2021, 62). And even when this strategy was "legally" discontinued, the now "feral" pigs were ubiquitous (Gibson 2021, 64).

Jumping ahead to the 1900s, when animal populations declined in the North, interest rose in hunting Southern feral pigs (Gibson 2021, 65). Attempts to engineer southern populations into larger, more exciting game quickly followed (Gibson 2021, 66), and these practices continue to this day (Gibson 2021, 69). These practices lead to the public perception of the South as overrun by "hogzillas," or similar monstrosities (Gibson 2021, 69). Interestingly, we can now see various perspectives on how to approach feral pigs. Biologists often see them as an invasive species and desire to kill them off; hunters desire to kill them, but entirely off; and some conservationists want them preserved (Gibson 2021, 69).

Gibson finishes with some quick insights about treating the domestication of pigs as an engineering process. First, we might contrast feral pig breeding in the South with more controlled efforts in the north, debunking what I see as a common assumption that engineering projects are well-defined, straightforward affairs (Gibson, 2021; also see Bucciarelli and Kroes, 2014). Next, we can take away some lessons about engineering failure: instead of machines merely "breaking down" as in some engineering projects and setting in with rust, organisms proliferate and can integrate into our social fabric in unexpected ways (Gibson 2021, 69). Finally, we can see how multiple perspectives on the to-be-engineered organisms might clash, cooperate, or compromise, further highlighting engineering as a social coordination process.

Gibson integrates history and philosophy by "reframing domestication as one long engineering project" (Gibson 2021, 60). This involves identifying some historical facts and stringing them into a narrative as if the history were one long engineering project. To contrast, consider what a philosopher's first pass of Gibson's integration is. Perhaps Gibson identifies a human practice (domestication) as a kind of science (engineering). Then, using a particular historical case of this practice (pigs in the Americas), we can gain an understanding of some properties of engineering and domestication via the historical work. Viewing his project this way naturally raises questions about the definition of "engineering" and whether domestication qualifies as such. For example, one might hold that an engineering project has a specific goal. Or one could be skeptical that the history of domesticated pigs is really a single history of a single engineering project.

But "viewing the history of domestication through an engineering lens helps shed light on both processes" (Gibson 2021, 60) means he is not strictly committing to domestication being a case of engineering. Rather, he is constructing a narrative through an engineering framing. And he argues that this can have epistemic payoffs. He mentions two: casting history as an engineering project, 1) can "shed light on both processes," both engineering and domestication, and 2) opens new paths of research (Gibson 2021, 60).

Tackling (2) first, it is plausible that this framing generates novel historical and philosophical directions. Consider that Gibson could have treated his history as a history of class conflict (e.g., poor farmers struggling to maintain control of their herds, understanding hunting as a high-class hobby, etc.). This would not have emphasized our collaborative attempt to domesticate, but rather would have highlighted very different features. This framing may lead historians to ask questions about JP Morgan's relationship to animal rearing. On the philosophy side, seeing the pigs slip from being considered "domesticated" to "feral," an analysis enabled by this engineering framing, raised questions for me about the distinction between the "natural" and "artificial."

(1) implies that we've learned something about both domestication and engineering through framing a historical episode as an engineering project. But how are these insights generated? Insights into domestication seem to come from treating feral pigs in the Americas as a single unified process, thereby creating a new example of domestication. This allows us, for example, to contrast and clarify domestication in the North and South (Gibson 2021, 62). On the other hand, insights about engineering come from describing a possible feature of engineering projects. For example, we can acknowledge the possibility of engineered organisms that grow beyond our controlled environments or recognize how different parties might clash in an engineering project, even if these events aren't literal. It is like imagining a possible engineering project with these features. So framing history as an engineering project can both generate possible situations for engineering practice and clarify their details, functioning as both a source and an aid for thinking about engineering.