Biological analogies in historyRoosevelt, Theodore
Philosophy
Biological analogies in history
Roosevelt, Theodore
History -- Philosophy
Then, for no reason that we can assign, destruction fell on this fauna.
All the great and terrible creatures died out, the same fate befalling
the changed representatives of the old autochthonous fauna and the
descendants of the migrants that had come down from the north. Ground
sloth and glyptodon, sabre-tooth, horse and mastodon, and all the
associated animals of large size, vanished, and South America, though
still retaining its connexion with North America, once again became a
land with a mammalian life small and weak compared to that of North
America and the Old World. Its fauna is now marked, for instance, by
the presence of medium-sized deer and cats, fox-like wolves, and small
camel-like creatures, as well as by the presence of small armadillos,
sloths, and ant-eaters. In other words, it includes diminutive
representatives of the giants of the preceding era, both of the giants
among the older forms of mammalia, and of the giants among the new
and intrusive kinds. The change was widespread and extraordinary,
and with our present means of information it is wholly inexplicable.
There was no ice age, and it is hard to imagine any cause which would
account for the extinction of so many species of huge or moderate
size, while smaller representatives, and here and there medium-sized
representatives, of many of them were left.
Now as to all of these phenomena in the evolution of species, there
are, if not homologies, at least certain analogies, in the history
of human societies, in the history of the rise to prominence, of
the development and change, of the temporary dominance, and death or
transformation, of the groups of varying kind which form races or
nations. Here, as in biology, it is necessary to keep in mind that we
use each of the words ‘birth’ and ‘death,’ ‘youth’ and ‘age,’ often
very loosely, and sometimes as denoting either one of two totally
different conceptions. Of course, in one sense there is no such thing
as an ‘old’ or a ‘young’ nation, any more than there is an ‘old’ or
‘young’ family. Phylogenetically, the line of ancestral descent must be
of exactly the same length for every existing individual, and for every
group of individuals, whether forming a family or a nation. All that
can properly be meant by the terms ‘new’ and ‘young’ is that in a given
line of descent there has suddenly come a period of rapid change. This
change may arise either from a new development or transformation of the
old elements, or else from a new grouping of these elements with other
and varied elements; so that the words ‘new’ nation or ‘young’ nation
may have a real difference of significance in one case from what they
have in another.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account