I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the 'lower animals'..........the bottom stages of development - namable as the Human Being. Below us - nothing.

"Here are the writer's experiments which prove that man .....'

I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the 'lower animals' (so called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the results humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian Theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals. In proceeding towards this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is commonly called the scientific method. Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had conic across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl - that, and to provide some fresh meat. They killed 72 of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the 71 to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl - if any - I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda's cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same results. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda is not; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda does not. This seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transition. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winter's supply and could not be persuaded to add to it. In order to bolster up a tottering reputation the ant pretended to store up supplies, but I was not deceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals; he is avaricious and miserly, they are not. In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals. Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no wrong is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex is allowed no hand in the making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster. The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country - takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in the possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle by force and bloodshed. Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasonable Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor - some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance - insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirchless innocence, till we have reached the bottom stages of development - namable as the Human Being. Below us - nothing.

Summary: Here are the writer's experiments which prove that man, and not animals is the Lower Animal. The experiments with anacondas prove that all anacondas will only kill t satisfy their hunger. he contrasted this with a case in which an English earl, who represents man, killed more buffaloes than he could consume because he is cruel and destructive. In the next experiment, he shows that animals will not accumulate excess food whereas man is always greedy for more. Even in the practice of keeping concubines, man uses cruel force to get his ways but animals operate by way of consensus. Finally, he observes that human beings are the only animals who organize masses to go into warfare with the purposes of robbing his fellow men and taking their possessions.