THE HUMAN ANIMAL _____________________ A great many people do not like to be called animals. I wanted to clarify the matter, hence this essay. First a note: The use of the term 'men, or 'man' (capitalised or otherwise) refers equally to women; it is a convenience only in writing. This does not assume that mean and women are 'equal'; they are not. Each gender is unique for survival purposes, even though they may exhibit varying traits of each other in the process. According to the dictates of men, there are two forms of life in the biosphere of this planet. They are flora and fauna. The former related to plants, the latter to animals (from bacteria to humans). The importance of any order of any 'living' things is determined only by Man's ability to so construct such an order. It should be as simple as that but not apparently so. Men feel that they are superior to animals and therefore will not be associated with the definition of 'animal'. I think this egocentricity is out of place because I do not personally believe that Man is superior to the other animals. I ask: If Man is superior to other animals, then prove this by explaining exactly why and how. Man also believes that he is a 'rational' being. This is crucial, I believe to the argument. Is rationality, as defined, necessarily a link to survival?  I suggest Man's 'rationality' is not necessarily true. Man's developing technological achievements far outweigh his ability to think straight, most of the time. I further suggest, in this vein, that there are very few rational beings amongst Mankind. Man developed as a relatively weak animal. If it wasn't for the development of his brain, he would not have survived. All animals seek survival, it is what they do, however they perform the function of reproduction to do so. This survival is not a thought as such, it is merely what animals do and quite successfully. When Man developed language, firstly through art and to being able to work his vocal cords to communication via sound, it was a profound development. So profound, in fact, it has led to his detriment. The development of Man has not elevated him above other animals, merely placed him in a position of dominance with other creatures. Man still succumbs to the bacteria and smaller creatures because their survival depends on their venom, however that is accomplished. He still succumbs to larger animals because of their might, skill, or agility. Man still retains many of the survival instincts of other animals because it is from them, somehow, he developed. To forgo or in some way deny these natural instincts is the path to doom. We are not ready to rely on our technological expertise to save us from ourselves as animals since he knows not what he does. Man thinks he is very clever. Clever, that is, on the basis that he believes he can control the rest of the natural flora and fauna of the biosphere. However, this control is again leading him to his doom. He is both ignorant and perhaps not so clever. To rescue himself from the problems he has created for himself, Man has created a fake universe where he believes he is superior. Again, this will lead him to his doom. If this behaviour is rational, then we need to redefine the word. The word itself is an invention, along with all the notions of the qualities (love, beauty and so forth). What does 'rational' mean? According to Collins English Dictionary, it means having reason, or the faculty of reasoning; sane; sensible; reasonable; just; fair. But what do any of these terms mean? The definition is nothing in itself. Reason means (according to the same dictionary): the faculty of thinking; the intellectual power of understanding; intelligence. We could go on forever expounding these unintelligible definitions, which actually say nothing! Observation would possibly give at least an inkling of the meaning. Rational would mean that an individual has the capability of survival if he observes the real/actual world about him and modify his behaviours to fit that world in any given circumstance for that survival. Evidence comes from observation and experiment. Results of that evidence come from interpretation of the data towards a conclusion (that may be modified with new evidence) that is part of the survival mechanism. Intelligence is the ability to observe, to co-ordinate risk, to extrapolate and thereby survive as an individual. Of course, what works for one does not work for another, thus is the universe crinkly. However, survival is possible given the intelligence defined above. Those who do have this intelligence, survive. Those who do not have this intelligence do not survive. This intelligence is not polarised but lies on a continuum. That is the 'law' of the natural world. So be it. Man is a negative animal when he is not rational. Thus being negative, he must accept his impending doom unless he does something serious about it. But if Man is not a rational being, then there is no hope for the few of us who might be (rational). We all know that we do irrational things and we pay for it. Some of us learn from these irrationalities but most don't appear to. They think that wealth (for example and however defined) will bring them happiness. Happiness is a spurious word which is purely subjective. To make some sort of survival possible, Man has 'rationalised' that the universe must be made linear; that is, it works like some sort of clockwork toy. This cannot be so since nothing can be defined or observed in these terms. The Universe is crinkly. It obeys its own 'laws', not those invented by Man. The universe is also a continuum. It is not polarised between a black and a white. Everything is a shade of grey or part of the electro/chemical/mechanical spectrum. This notion worries more people than it possibly should. You cannot tie anything down to a set of rules or laws. The Chinese saw very early on that life was change. If it didn't change, then how did we get here? Everything works with everything else. We live in an electrical/chemical/mechanical universe. We are part (or the result) of a plasma which many cannot understand. Understanding requires a lot of work but you do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand; anyone can do it if they wish. This separates the rational being from the non-rational. It's as simple as that. Rationality depends also on the level of awareness that Man has. Not all human animals have the same sensibilities/rationalities or the skills to acquire them. Awareness of being aware does distinguish us from other animals except, perhaps, in degree. If you look around you it is obvious that people are not always 'on the same planet' as the saying goes. Man as animal. The one thing that galls me, is the response of Man to his continuous use of the other animal kingdom to refer to his behaviours. The 'He's a pig.', 'She acts like a cat.' syndrome. People may in some ways act like other animals but that is because of their common heritage. The problem arises when there is no obvious connection between the behaviour of a person and the animal referred to, especially in some behaviours. 'He eats like a pig.' is a reference to an observed behaviour in an animal that bears no relation to a human animal because pigs know nothing other than the way they eat or they live. Why should we relate this to a Man? Is there something wrong with how a pig eats? The other side of the coin is that other animals do not act like Man. If you take most of Man's behaviours animals simply do not have them. Other animals do not wage war on each other. They do not kill and maim in the name of some religion. They do not indulge in deviant sexual behaviours. They may have a pecking order but that is for survival not control. Only Man controls and that is the worst feature of his overall negative behaviour. Other animals do not allow for vast population growth as that is anathema to their survival. Man seeks to control this, has not the abilities to do so and therefore Man is producing more humans than necessary for survival. Apart from planetary events, such as floods, hurricanes, volcanic activity and suchlike, there are no other forms of natural culling. There is no reason to suppose that the planet cannot sustain more population but it is the iniquitous behaviour of Man that prevents this distribution fairly. References to other animals should barely be made, except, perhaps for positive comments. The comments mostly made by humans in relation to human animals and others is usually negative. This is because Man is a negative animal, generally speaking. It is more 'put down' that 'put up'. I don't think I have ever seen 'put up' in the psychological arena. The phrase 'don't put down' is itself a negative! You only have to listen/watch the media to appreciate that statement. It's a pretty good conclusion to assume other animals will outlive Man. Man has developed his own means of self-destruction, not necessarily a nuclear holocaust. Man has become so self-centred (which no other animals appear to be) that he is doomed to extinction sometime. Other animals (including bacteria, will survive much longer, as long as the planet has a biosphere). Man also has the ability to live in the unreal world of beliefs that something else might salvage his own devastation, hence his reliance on some amorphous omniscience to get him out of trouble. However, that is a man-made delusion which has no place in the order of the universe which does its own thing despite Man's pathetic interference believing he himself is the master of the universe. He will be the master of his fate, which in short time will be his own undoing. There is no purpose in life that Man does not invent for his own survival. I can't imagine that other animals have a sense of 'purpose' but that may, of course, be possible. Animals ( other than Man) do not kill each other for gain. They live out their lives, where possible, to just do what they do, nothing else. Beliefs that some sort of 'god' rules their lives is a spurious notion arising from the days when Man had no idea what he was or was to become. This notion has spurred the controllers of others (another of Man's aberrations) to do just that, control others from the fear that they are being controlled and are too weak as individual animals to survive on their own. Man lives in a pretend world of his own construct. This pretend world gets sadder by the day; you only have to look through the media. Even Man's science is seriously degraded by those who control the funds. No longer, it seems, can most humans live in a world that changes. They require the world to be static and linear because they do not have the survival skills to remain alive if not for others who pretend to look after them. They require unnatural drugs (including the media) to sustain their pretence at living and most are too dumb to realise that they are being exploited. It is not very encouraging to say that Man as an animal has a lot to learn, if indeed it is not already too late. If this essay means anything at all to those who read it, then those people are already on the path; they are already enlightened and will be the survivors, one way or another. The author is not affiliated with any groups of any kind. Peter K. Sharpen June, 2007

Return to CONTENTS page