In The Time Machine, Wells, through the perspective of the Time Traveler, compares the Eloi and Morlock peoples to 19th century man in an attempt to reconcile their status as humans and the degenerative evolution that led to their existence. The Time Traveler describes the Eloi as being “[physically] slight, [and lacking] intelligence” (92). However, he believes that “in a state of physical balance and security, power, intellectual as well as physical, would be out of place” (92) and, therefore, he reconciles their human, albeit diminished, condition.
In contrast, the Time Traveler does not consider the Morlocks to be as human as the Eloi, or even human, and describes them as “ape-like… dull white [with] large greyish-red eyes” (107). In addition, the Morlocks are nocturnal, live underground and cannibalize the Eloi because they do not have “the [human] intelligence that would have made… [cannibalism] a torment” (125). However, considering the denotation of cannibalism, if the Morlocks cannibalize the Eloi, are they not as equally human as the Eloi?
By attempting to reconcile the human status of the Eloi and Morlocks as compared to 19th century man, Wells brings into question the stability of man’s rank on the Chain of Being and provokes the following questions: Does the degenerative evolution of future “man” affect man’s rank on the Chain of Being, lowering it to the level of apes and other lower beings? Is man’s rank on the Chain of Being irreversibly altered or rendered void if “man” is modeled after a human form other than what is accepted as being human?
When considering the Chain of Being and cannibalism, I begin to think about the hierarchy of animals based on what eats what. Humans eat cows that eat grass, and I assume that humans must be at the top of the Chain if they are the ones eating rather than the ones being eaten. This hierarchy based on consumption, however, conflicts with hierarchy based on intellect, according to Wells. In my opinion, if the Morlocks eat humans, but lack human intelligence, perhaps they rank above humans on the Chain of Being and have a different kind of intelligence that surpasses that of humans. Like most of our discussions about the Chain of Being, I think your question about degeneration's effect on the place of Man in the Chain depends on how you qualify the Chain.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when I think about current examples of degeneration in humans, like neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, those humans are still humans and not ape's. You might consider humans with neurological disorders "modeled" after a human form, as they are not as cognitively functional as what would be considered human, but I still accept them as human.
When I first started to contemplate the question about human's degeneration, I tended to agree with the assertion that man's place in the Chain of Being had been reduced. However, the more I thought about it, I realized you cannot consider man's position on the chain solely in relation to what it once was or will be. If you are considering man's position at a different time, you must consider it instead relative to the other organism's of the time. Wells did a very poor job of giving us any useful information with which to complete this process though.
DeleteOne can either assume that:
1. Readers were never told of any other animals because they had all died out by the time of the Eloi and Morlocks or
2. that Wells wanted to spare the descriptions to keep the story short or
3. because nothing else had changed.
The first assumption seems unlikely due to the presence of the crab-like creatures detailed later on. The second is problematic in that it gives readers no bearing on man's relation to other species. The third (but most unlikely) does however give us closure because if it were true, man's ranking would clearly be diminished.
Overall, I think this is a very interesting topic to think about, however I do not think a conclusive answer can be purposed due to the highly speculative and hypothetical premises which the question functions on.
I don't know that man's evolution here can be considered "degenerative". As we discussed in class last week, evolution is not working towards an end or a superior being, rather, it is just a matter of adapting to best handle the current situation. As Emma discussed, the Chain of Being is largely dependent on how the chain is characterized, which is somewhat unsatisfying to me because we could all be speaking from very different perspectives. Maybe instead of a "chain of being" we need to consider "chains of being" depending on the situation under consideration?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about the chain of being with this novel as well and what it says about physical and societal representations of the new age "humans." I feel as though one of the main reasons that the Time Traveler prefers the Eloi is because he is living with them; at first he accepted the Morlocks and did not fear them, but after listening to the Elois' story and viewing their distress. This significantly influenced his thinking.
ReplyDeleteThe Eloi are peaceful people only feeding on fruits and happily hoping around and represent how humans see themselves in the grand scheme of things. The Morlocks, however, are truly more humanistic; the Eloi and Morlocks have turned into two separate species by this time, and the Morlocks are simply using the resources available to them, not unlike how we treat cattle or other animals we can easily over power. I think the Time Traveler's true dilemma was realizing that we are not peaceful, lovely creatures that harm nothing like we believe.
I really enjoyed Alison's point regarding the Morlocks' use of the Eloi as resources being akin to our use of cattle. I'm sure if we lived with cattle, communicated with them and experienced their slaughter, we may be more apt to sympathize with these creatures. This discussion of the human's place of the chain of being and future evolution effect on its position reminds me of the discussions over animal ethics in my philosophy class. The works of Peter Singer and Tom Regan on this subject, among many others, generally seek to establish methods and both qualitative and quantitative standards by which we can evaluate a certain species or individual's right to life and benefits beyond life. Kant's discussion of animals and humans and their moral duties to each other rests on the principle of moral being and reasoning power. With this logic, he elevates humans above other animals. In the Time Machine, however, it seems, that we resonate with the cannibalism of the Elio by the Morlocks, despite their diminished intelligence, because they possess other human-like traits. This is somewhat contradictory to Kant's thoughts on the subject and reflects what is broadly referred to as speciesism, assigning and extending moral value to members of your own species or in the case of the Eloi, a closely related species. Through the lens of the philosophy I discussed, especially the views of Kant, I would argue that the degenerative evolution of the human mind to a point where significant capacity for reasoning and moral behavior is lost would indeed lower our species position among other creatures.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that man's place on the chain of being should be dependent on his contemporary organisms, I don't know if I agree with the argument that the Eloi are lower than the Morlock's on the chain of being. My biggest cause for believing this comes from the last line of the epilogue when the narrator reflects on the flowers given to the Time Traveler by Weena. He says that "even when mind and strength had gone, gratitude and a mutual tenderness still lived on in the hear of man." There are animals in today's world can overpower humans in terms of physical prowess. However, humans remain on the top of the chain due to their enlightened thinking and emotions. In this metaphor the Morlocks are the brute animals and the Eloi are today's humans. While the Morlocks do indeed have physical superiority to the Eloi, their mental prowess seems no stronger. Therefore, the deciding factor in the chain is the presence of human- like emotion, which the Eloi seemed to have slightly retained over the Morlocks. Following this argument, the Eloi are higher on the chain of being than the Morlocks due to their slightly more human emotions.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest reason cannibalism is so viscerally disgusting and so deeply morally disturbing is that it insults our sense of human life being "sacred" or "dignified". You can see how our seat at the top of the chain of being compares to our seat at the top of the food chain. Humans are sometimes referred to as superpredators because they're so rarely preyed upon, and while humans kill other humans all the time, the idea of your corpse literally being eaten to feed others is utterly foreign, and unacceptable to people. But maybe that makes the Murlocks more adaptive, and more likely to survive, and while they might be "un-human", i think the time-travler fails to consider that might be the very thing that makes them better.
ReplyDelete