|
|
| |
|
The Man-Animal Dichotomy |
|
|
I have devoted my time to the study of the characteristics and behaviors
exhibited by the so-called "lower animals," comparing them to those of
mankind. The findings I have made are deeply disheartening to me, as they
compel me to renounce my loyalty to the Darwinian Theory of the Ascent of
Man from the Lower Animals. It has become evident to me that this theory
must be discarded in favor of a new and more accurate one, which I propose
to name the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.
In arriving at this uncomfortable conclusion, I have not relied on
guesswork, speculation, or conjecture, but have rigorously employed what is
commonly known as the scientific method. Some of my experiments have been
rather peculiar. During my research, I came across a historical account
wherein hunters on our expansive Great Plains arranged a buffalo hunt to
amuse an English nobleman and provide fresh meat. They slaughtered 72 of
these majestic creatures, consuming a portion of one and leaving the
remaining 71 carcasses to decompose. In order to discern any disparity
between an anaconda and an earl, I introduced seven young calves into the
anaconda's enclosure. The grateful serpent promptly crushed and devoured one
calf, then reclined in contentment. It displayed no further interest in the
remaining calves and exhibited no inclination to harm them. Repeating this
experiment with other anacondas consistently yielded the same results. The
fact was irrefutable: the discrepancy between an earl and an anaconda lies
in the earl's cruelty and the anaconda's absence thereof. The earl
thoughtlessly destroys what holds no purpose for him, whereas the anaconda
does not. This observation suggested that the earl descended from the
anaconda but suffered great losses during the transition.
I provided countless varieties of wild and domesticated animals with ample
opportunities to accumulate vast quantities of food, yet none of them seized
the chance. Squirrels, bees, and certain birds amassed provisions but ceased
their efforts once they had secured enough to survive the winter, refusing
to accumulate further. The ant, in an attempt to bolster its faltering
reputation, pretended to store supplies, but I was not deceived. I am
acquainted with the true nature of ants. These experiments convinced me that
there exists a distinction between man and the higher animals: he is driven
by greed and stinginess, while they are not.
Throughout my investigations, I came to realize that among the animal
kingdom, only man harbors insults and injuries, brooding over them until an
opportunity arises for revenge. The passion for vengeance remains unknown to
the higher animals. Roosters may maintain harems, but only with the consent
of their concubines, thereby avoiding any wrongdoing. Men, on the other
hand, keep harems through brute force, bolstered by unjust laws that prevent
the other sex from participating in their creation. In this aspect, man
stands far below the rooster.
While higher animals may engage in individual combat, they never organize
themselves into massive forces. Man is the sole perpetrator of the atrocity
known as war. Man is the only creature who forcefully usurps his helpless
fellow's land, seizing it and driving its rightful owner away or
annihilating him. Throughout history, man has committed these acts time and
time again. Not a single piece of land on this planet remains in the
possession of its rightful owner or has not been forcibly taken from one
possessor to another through violence and bloodshed.
Man is proclaimed to be the Reasoning Animal. Such is the assertion.
However, I believe this claim is debatable. In fact, my experiments have
demonstrated to me that man is the Unreasonable Animal. One need only
examine his history, as I have briefly outlined above. It appears evident to
me that whatever he may be, he is not a creature
endowed with reason. His track record is nothing short of a fantastical
chronicle of madness. In truth, man is inherently foolish. Simple concepts
that other animals grasp effortlessly elude him entirely.
And thus, I conclude that we, as a species, have descended and regressed
from some distant ancestor—a minuscule particle adrift within the vast
boundaries of a water droplet, perhaps. Step by step, from one insect to
another, from one animal to the next, from reptile to reptile, we have
traversed the long and untarnished path of innocence until we have arrived
at our present state—labeled as Human Beings. Below us lies nothingness,
devoid of comparable beings. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
