|
I have dedicated my time to studying the traits and behaviors of what are
commonly termed the "lower animals," drawing comparisons to mankind. My
findings have been profoundly disheartening, leading me to abandon my
adherence to Darwin's Theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals. It
is clear to me now that this theory must be discarded in favor of a more
accurate one, which I propose to call The Descent of Man from the Higher
Animals. In reaching this uncomfortable conclusion, I have relied not
on speculation or conjecture, but on the rigorous application of the
scientific method. Some of my experiments may seem unconventional. For
instance, I encountered a historical account in which hunters on our vast
Great Plains arranged a buffalo hunt to entertain an English nobleman and
provide fresh meat. They killed 72 of these majestic creatures, consumed
only a portion of one, and left the remaining 71 to rot. To examine the
difference between an anaconda and an earl, I placed seven calves into the
serpent’s enclosure. The grateful anaconda crushed and devoured one calf,
then lay peacefully, making no attempt to harm the others. When repeated
with different anacondas, the results were identical. The conclusion was
undeniable: the difference between an earl and an anaconda lies in cruelty.
The earl destroys senselessly, while the anaconda does not. This suggests
that man may have descended from the anaconda, but lost much in the
transition.
I offered various species of wild and domestic animals ample opportunity
to hoard vast amounts of food, yet none of them took advantage. Squirrels,
bees, and certain birds gathered enough provisions to last through winter,
and then stopped. Even the ant, attempting to salvage its reputation,
pretended to store supplies, but I was not deceived. These experiments
revealed a clear distinction between man and the higher animals: man is
driven by greed, while they are not.
During my investigations, I observed that only man harbors grudges,
nursing insults and injuries with a thirst for revenge. The passion for
vengeance is unknown among the higher animals. Roosters may maintain harems,
but only with the consent of their concubines, thus avoiding any wrongdoing.
In contrast, men secure harems through brute force, upheld by unjust laws
that prohibit women from participating in their creation. In this regard,
man falls far below the rooster.
Higher animals may fight individually, but they never form vast armies.
Only man perpetrates the atrocity known as war. Man alone seizes his
fellow's land, driving away its rightful owner or annihilating him.
Throughout history, man has repeated these actions endlessly, so that not a
single piece of land remains in the possession of its original owner,
untainted by violence and bloodshed.
Man is proclaimed the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. Yet, I find
this assertion debatable. My experiments have led me to conclude that man is
the Unreasonable Animal. One need only observe his history to see the truth
of this statement. His record is a fantastical chronicle of madness. Indeed,
man is inherently foolish. Concepts that other animals grasp instinctively
elude him entirely.
In the end, I am convinced that we, as a species, have descended from
some distant ancestor—perhaps a microscopic particle adrift in a droplet of
water. Step by step, from insect to insect, from creature to creature, from
reptile to reptile, we have descended along the once-untainted path of
innocence, arriving at our present state. Now, we stand as Human Beings, and
beneath us lies only the void, devoid of comparison or equal. |
