Some Thoughts on Chapter 1

An interesting question: "What animals shall we imitate?"

I believe that Hayakawa is only asking this rhetorical question to point out the uselessness of attempting to directly equate human fitness with animal fitness. As he tells us, there are so many different ways to define survival, and while people usually like to take on the "cunning of a fox" or the "strength of an ox," the survival and fitness skills of animals such skunks, houseflies, and ticks are usually neglected. Choosing a few animals to imitate for "survival skills" is a foolhardy task because as Hayakawa mentions, "all [animals] have obviously survived in one way or another," and we cannot define human fitness to be the same as that of a lower animal.
Hayakawa wonders if "human survival does not revolve around a different kind of fitness," namely one dependent upon communication and cooperation.

We cannot describe human fitness solely in terms of lower animal traits because our fitness revolves around our capability to "share nervous systems" and communicate, something the lower animals lack, as Hayakawa shows in his example of the two animals yelping with each other.

Hayakawa's last sentence of the chapter summarizes what human fitness actually involves, "the ability to talk, write, listen, and read" so as to increase our chances of survival. That's something the lower animals certainly lack.

I agree with Janet that we are not inclined to imitate the animals.

Any more thoughts?
(Eric Wei)