Are You An Animal?

My underlying understanding of human beings is that our behavior mirrors that of animals and that we have an additional capacity for behaving in a way which is opposite to animals. That is to say that we have the “free will” to shut down our animal programs and behave in an opposite fashion. So, for example, we can steal like animals do or we can choose not to steal (even in the face of hardship). We can hoard our wealth like animals do or we can share or give away our wealth away. We can kill like animals do or we can choose not to kill (even when threats are upon us). These things, this ability to stop our programs from running, is (I believe) a uniquely human thing. What the ability also seems to do (when operating properly) is to create guilt when we act contrary to it (i.e. when we act like animals). Many Christians (while most lack a fundamental understanding of the principle) call this component the “Holy Spirit”. It is also termed “your conscience”, “your morality”, “your spirit”, “the son of god”, “Allah”, “Jesus”, and most often simply “god”. None of the terms (as classified) change the component nor it’s functionality. For the purposes of this discussion I will call it the “god component”.

A basic problem arises in the operation of our god component in two different ways. The first arises because (unlike animals) we humans can rationalize animal (immoral) behavior. This gives us an added dimension which permits us to operate in an animal mode while producing what we claim is a good reason to do so. Usually one which looks rather humane at first glance. That is to say, we are able to continue to act like animals and yet justify our behavior (to ourselves) in a way which makes it appear to be the correct and moral behavior. And thereby eliminate the guilt we would otherwise experience. We rationalize the behavior as moral behavior even though it amounts to nothing more than being and acting like an animal. For example, when we steal we can rationalize that behavior by saying things like, “the other guy had more than enough anyway.” Or when we hoard our wealth we might say “I worked hard for it so why shouldn’t I reap the rewards, why should I share my money?” Or when we kill, we label it a “penalty” and rationalize it as a necessary evil to deter other killings. Many people make the ultimate guilt-relieving rationalization and justify immoral behavior by believing that it is sanctioned by god. And this type of rationalization permits limitless guilt free animal behaviors. In short, we can find many reasons to justify animal or immoral behavior. And these rationalizations work to suppress our otherwise god-component-related-guilt.

These types of rationalizations come from different groups of people and for different reasons. Often the justifications for acting like animals is presented in the context of survival and preservation. Or the “us against them” context which actually plays upon our contemporaneous animal needs to create bonds and maintain power structures. Of course the means to maintaining this survival is usually by “any and all means” - including those which are exclusively animal in nature (killing, hoarding, stealing, etc.).

In short, by rationalizing animal behavior, we are able short circuit our god component and thereby alleviate our guilt, ignore our conscience, and behave immorally without an individual mental consequence. In effect, we fool ourselves in to believing that our behavior is justified when in fact it is not.

These types of rationalizations are not limited to packs which are inherently concerned with power. They also exist in groups which claim to follow god. Historically. we often see animal behavior exhibited in the confines of a belief in god. Couched in the blessing of or at the request of same. In fact, all religious organizations fuel the continuation of programs which have historically created conflict among we humans by creating divisive power structures which beckon to our animal needs to defend and fight. More specifically, those programs which control our innate need to dominate or be submissive. To “lead: and to “follow”. To be sided up with and defend the dominant pack. And, of course, the ultimate pack is the one with god on it’s side - of which each religious group claims exclusivity. None of these affiliations (in and of themselves) speak to anything other than behaving like an animal. Either in the context of filling our need to belong (to rule, to follow, etc.) or our animal need to survive (in this case transfixed from biological survival to eternal survive). And within these hierarchies, no matter how much one person claims to be “following” god, what they are really primarily following is their pack. Their instinct to protect their pack is primary. Even when there is a complete and utter absence of any justification to do so. Their desire to be a member of the powerful pack is prevalent. We have, as a result, the Muslim extremist who kills in the name of Allah. Or the Catholic who defends a priest’s behavior regardless of the fact that that behavior has it’s loyalty in animal behaviors. As I noted before, having god as a rationale for animal behavior is the greatest means of eliminating our conscience (our guilt). God (or the thought that our actions are morally correct) permit us to act like animals in a guilt free fashion. How could I be wrong to kill the infidel if this is what god wants? How could it be immoral to stand up for the unjustifiable acts of a man of god? A man who stands for all of those things which god wants? What these justifications really are is a means to eliminate our guilt and suppress our god component. In the case of defense they are propagated by an innate need to defend our packs. I suggest that this type of defenses is one of blindness and that the blindness stems from systemic programs which are unrecognizable in their operation by us on a conscious level.

The second problem arises in the fact that these animal programs are highly imprint-able on our behavior. For the sake of brevity I will only touch upon this second obstacle to behaving as our god component suggests. Once we engage in something like stealing, our brains attach a high to the behavior (as is intended in our biology) and we want to do it again - even in the face of our guilt. The more we engage in this animal behavior, the more we want to engage in it. It becomes a vicious cycle for us in that at some point we are physically required to behave like animals, have created a strong biological need to behave like an animal, and yet have the guilt remain as a result of our god component’s normal operation. This type of suppression does not alleviate the guilt, but rather creates a duality and a conflict that can even lead to mental instability. But more often than not simply leads to habitual behavior. For example, when we defend a position we are running innate programs. The more the position is attacked the more we need to defend it and the greater the lengths we will go to defend it. The effects of operating these animal programs is therefore cumulative and progressive.

The most troubling part of the programs which are at war with our god component is that they are strongest when they are both permitted to run and re-run and when the justification for behaving as such is simultaneously rationalized as moral. The equivalent of two jet engines pushing the behavior to normalcy. Resulting in a simultaneous condition of unawareness of action and a satiation of an underlying biological need or needs.

It therefore stands to reason, that until we can successfully identify our own sub-conscious animalistic programs, consciously eliminate them, and avoid reinforcing our animal programs, we humans (individually and as a collective) will continue to be nothing more than animals.