I agree that civilizations have been violent, savage, cruel, prejudiced, and so on. But as I explain in some related articles (links below), I have in mind a metaphysical sense of wildness that assumes atheism, existentialism, and cosmicist naturalism, and that implies a dark pantheism.
So I'd argue that people aren't wild in so far as we're preoccupied with artificiality, domestication, and civility that takes an existential stance against the wilderness. We may be brutal and shortsighted in imposing civilization, and this revolt may even be self-destructive and short-lived. But if we're deliberately attempting to learn nature's tricks so we can exploit them and impose an emergent social order, that strikes me as an autonomous, intelligently designed response to nature's wilder, more monstrous form of creativity. This amounts to an historical, sociological reconstruction of Cartesian dualism, as a I say in the dialogue.
You think it's "absurd" to say that nature has no mental interiority and is thus indifferent to whatever transpires? Well, this follows from the scientific objectification of nature, as I explain elsewhere (bottom two links).
If we were one with nature, psychology and the social sciences would reduce to physics. Instead, orders of constructs emerge in nature.
