ii64 LIFE : OUTLINES OF GENERAL BIOLOGY 



execute a retreat, not in a disorderly rout, but with some hint of 

 tactics, and care for the young. 



It cannot be supposed for a moment that a human society grew 

 out of a troup of gorillas. Man made his own society. But our point 

 is that man is solidary with mammals, among which the social note 

 is often sounded. Think of beavers in their "village", prairie dogs 

 in their "town", wolves in their pack, elephants in their troup, wild 

 horses in their herd, dolphins in their "school". It is true that many 

 mammals follow the each-for-himself line of life, but sociality has 

 also its numerous illustrations. It is, so to speak, in the blood of the 

 class to which Man zoologically belongs, and within which he 

 certainly emerged. Our point is that if all mammals were like the 

 cats that walk alone, the emergence of social man would be much 

 more of a scientific puzzle than it is. 



There is much truth in Rousseau's saying: Man did not make 

 Society, Society made Man. For it was in a society that man's 

 characteristics — such as reflectiveness, language, and gentleness — 

 would have most chance of surviving. That is to say, new depar- 

 tures or variations in the direction of these estimable qualities would 

 be most likely to be fostered in social conditions. A very clever 

 creature might evolve as a solitary, but can we picture man's 

 emotional and ethical and artistic evolution apart from a social 

 heritage ? In this sense society made man. 



But how did the human society begin? It is not improbable, as 

 Prof. Barell first suggested, that Man and the Himalayas arose 

 simultaneously, towards the end of the Miocene Period, over a 

 million years ago. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward tells us that "as 

 the land rose, the temperature would be lowered, and some of the 

 apes which had previously lived in the warm forest would be trapped 

 to the north of the raised area". As the forests shrank and gave 

 place to plains, the ancestors of man had to face living on the 

 ground. If they had remained arboreal, or semi-arboreal like the 

 apes, there might never have been men. 



Our theory is that the early forerunners of Homo had to try a 

 new environment, and that this was a good reason for their standing 

 by one another socially. They were doubtless big-brained, and there 

 is no reason to suppose that they were lacking in courage or resource- 

 fulness, but they were adopting a new role as terrestrial creatures, 

 with formidable wild beasts as competitors. Their hope was not 

 only in their wits, but in their solidarity. Union is strength. 



Another reason for clubbing together may be found in the pro- 

 longed human infancy, with its appealing helplessness, for this 

 involved self-subordinating division of labour. For an isolated 

 human family the struggle for existence was too keen. Thus arose 

 a self-preservative linking of families into a simple society. 



But it may be asked, Does not an otter family and many another 



