eon Ways a beast. To which a British an- thropologist, Ivor Montagu, answers Simply: “Ardrey errs through ignor- ance, Lorenz through simplicity, Mor- Mis through dramtic exaggeration.” He Sums it up as “. . . such silliness . , .” and the purpose behind it all is “. . . to €xculpate the existing system and fos- ter the belief that nothing can be done to change it.” The anti-humanistic views of the three authors are objectionable on Several grounds, both scientific and Philosophical. It is quite conceivable, for instance, that some animal species might resent being placed’ in*the same Category as man after observing the Way we can misbehave. On the other hand, there is one phenomenon in human life which would seem to con- tradict flatly the instinct theory, for it has appeared whenever and wherever man has proved that there are some things that are more precious than life Itself, and more compelling than the Impulse to survive. We can be thankful that not all zoo- logists are given to such extravagan- Za. In a more serious appraisal of Man’s place in nature, we find an al- together different account. Here is one example among many: of a _ more balanced view: “That modern man_has_ evolved through the operation of the same forces which produced all other crea- tures is clear. And it should also be Clear that man is by far the most re- Markable product of evolution. Man is sometimes described rather Offhandedly as. being “just” another animal. Often, on the contrary, he is Considered to be so radically distinct that the appellation “animal” assumes the character of an insult. Neither view 1S justified. Most certainly he is an animal, but an animal with many uni- que attributes. He possesses a brain proportionately far larger and functionally more elaborated than any Other animal.” For a mature view of the process Of human evolution we must note a Number of distinctive features. In the Interaction between man and his en- Vironment, we know that man is by nod means completely at the mercy of his external surroundings. History shows him to be an active agent in shaping the world he inhabits. Note especially this marked difference: while all other animals adapt them- selves to their habitat by bodily changes, man alone can change his habit patterns without any correspond- ing structural modifications. He can learn to cross the oceans or fly through the air and into the ionosphere with- out having to grow fins or wings or other appendages. Which does, in a way, put him in a class by himself in the whole range of biological ramifi- cations. The question still remains: to what extent are we controlled by our in- stincts? The answer in brief is that in the whole of the animal kingdom the acquired and the innate are closely interwoven: but nowhere is that which is individually learned more prominent or more predominant over the biologi- cal inheritance than in the sphere of human activity. It is because of that unique attribute that culture, science and society came into being. In fact, so rapid has been our advance in science that we can now foresee the day when we shall be in a position to control human evolution in its physi- cal aspects. The Christian Science Monitor of April 24, ’68 reports: “Within a few decades, they (the genetecists) should know how to manipulate the basic mechanism that determines the form and capacity of the human body.” We can say then, in all humility, that for those of us who firmly be- lieve that our world needs changing and can be changed for the better, there is no biological handicap in man’s constitution—in human nature— that would impede him, much less pre- vent him, from realizing that goal. Fully one billion people living on our planet have done exactly that. For the zoologists and ethologists and amateur sociologists who think otherwise we would recommend some reading in Marxist literature as The Writer and the Class Struggle, or any similar work that would bring them down to earth.