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.