Young Writers Society

Home » Literary works » Article / Essay » Realistic

E - Everyone

The story of man

by achakravarthi9


THE STORY OF MAN
I’ve often seen the illuminated particles of dust under the light bulb and I’m surprised to see such a small part of nature’s creation. I also feel every creation has to be given equal importance and vitality. We are after all just humans not creators. So if we do put some effort and help in promoting the survival of other creature, we aren’t doing a favour, we are just doing our job. But we have widened the hierarchical division of vitality in creations. Nowadays, the importance of creatures is sorted based on how useful they are to us. The fact itself that I am asking you readers to think about what I said is scary.
However important the above aspect may be, that is not the focus of this article is not the dominated members of nature but the dominating member; the humans of course. The human man was born with a pure soul and body and mind. But his surroundings brought about peculiar changes in him. Hurting another soul was never part of the package for us humans. But one key element sent him into a state of frenzy; Survival. As he came into the world, he realized he needed to stay alive and it wasn’t that easy of a task. The necessity for survival brought about many new elements in man which he was new to such as selfishness. He reached such a state that he was ready to hurt another soul to satisfy his needs. This was the survival age.
But as time progressed, survival became all too easy, just like breathing. At this stage, a new necessity had risen. Now humans fought with each other to reach the top. I call this the age of competition. Just as survival became no Hercules task, reaching the top seemed to take a lot of time and energy.
Side by side, man also developed relationships. He realized that he would be a fool to fight a battle. But it also had an emotional reason to support it. He made friends and mates. Males and females realized their clan would wither away in the absence of their union. He needed friends to pour out his heart to at the end of the day. Hence, man came to called a social animal.
By this time, he was at par with all other creations. Now came the age of hierarchy. This was the age when boundaries were created, fences were put up and the world went from the abode of man to the abode of regions. The people of the world had no sense of belonging and the powerful overpowered the weak. But as far as I understand, the law of nature is that the powerful protect the weak not take advantage of them. I see this age as the beginning of destruction.
Man, soon realized it was impossible to generate every single thing he craved for and his craving and need seemed to have no end. So they devised the concept of exchange. Hence was born the concept of exchange. This idea flourished for long but wasn’t good enough to last. Soon, came the idea of currency. This is seen as the beginning of the end of a selfless, open and free-flowing society. After the invent of money, came the segregation of the society into fragments. It was then that society was shattered and we haven’t been able to put it back together an I don’t think we ever will. This was the age of division and just like the age of competition, it has no end. The survival age was just a phase because man had no other focus in life at that stage. Hence, it was bound to see an end. But division? As long as mankind exists, division exists. Based on money, we have rich and poor, based on God; we have religion, based on power; we have the powerful and the weak and based on appearance, on one side we have the bold and the beautiful and on the other side we have the uglies. At one end, people are going higher and higher and the sky is the limit for them but on the other hand people suffer at the hands of ill-fate and incapability. The ridge between the two strata is widening day by day, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
As the hands of time keep ticking, mankind comes forth as an evolutionary clan, which has evolved and changed over the years of its existence. Whether for the good or the latter, I do not know but change is the only visible constant in the evolution of mankind.


Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments



User avatar
1125 Reviews


Points: 14155
Reviews: 1125

Donate
Sun May 26, 2013 4:14 am
Elinor wrote a review...



Hello!

This is a really cool essay. It was well written and you had a great sense of atmopsohere. Normally I get bored reading these kinds of things, but this piece really did a good job of keeping me intrigued until the end. The imagery is fantastic and beautiful, and reminds me of an expierence I had at an impressionist museum in France that was built in a cave and played soft piano music.

That being said, I think you can improve upon this somewhat. Your intent isn't clear. You talk about the evolution of man, but why? In a writing class I'm currently finishing up, My teacher always talks about how every piece you compose should have a "so what". Basically, this means you shouldn't write a piece just to write it, but you should write because there is some sort of message that you want to convey. And I definitely think that there is something there. But right now -- you just sort of write about how man evolves and don't really delve beyond that.

When you revise, write with confidence and purpose. Hope this helps! Shout if you need anything further.

- Elinor




User avatar
303 Reviews


Points: 11152
Reviews: 303

Donate
Sun May 26, 2013 3:40 am
View Likes
StoneHeart wrote a review...



Okey, hey thar! Here I am, back for another Review Day Review!

I enjoyed this. Your pacing, spacing, grammar, style, and argument were all good. I liked it. You presented and supported your thoughts and ideas very well, and I must say that there's little to add there. You have a few, small, grammar mistakes, and a couple of little things I'd like to argue out with you! So, I'll see what I can do here. :)

First off! In this piece it is quite obvious that you are putting religion to the side, I can feel that, if you aren't then you must follow some religion very different from Christianity, because your argument does not com-pat wit it! So something I'd like to mention: Technically speaking change is virtually the definition of a variable, it cannot, by virtue of its definition, be a constant. You can't have a constant of change. No of, yes. But not with the of!

Did you know that the Ancient Egyptians didn't believe in giving alms to the poor? Their reasoning was that the world is shaped around a divine order, and that that order should not be upset. To your complaint that the rift between rich and poor is growing, they would say that that's how things are supposed to be. A Christian would tell you that humanity is imperfect and that in that imperfection they can't work together and get into a constant wealth level. Due to the fact that I assume you are not Christian I'll set aside my beliefs for a moment.

If I was forced to step out of Christianity I would probably choose beliefs closely following those of Ayn Rand, with only a few variations. If I followed those beliefs I would respond to you that humans, all humans, have the capability to become rich. The poor man, if he gets himself together, could better his fortune. It's just that many of us beings are sadly lazy, and are happy being low. Those poor are happy as poor, no matter how much they complain! Why do I assume this? Because they do nothing to better themselves. I would honor the rich for the hard work they have done to get where they are! . . . it's a view you might do well to think about.

Anyway, I don't have time for too much more technical fluff, and must now move on to your Grammar :

Your general problem here in Grammar is an (assumed) unfamiliarity with the English language. You make mistakes that a practiced English speaker would not do. I'll nit-pick out what mistakes I can, but you must understand that it is going to be up to you, in the end, to fix the problems! Get a grammar checker and read it out loud if you have to! Also, your paragraphs are little bit on the large side. I have to use a finger, and I shouldn't. You need to cut them down a bit – it really helps with readability.

I also feel every creation has to be given equal importance and vitality.

This 'also' feels very awkward, I advise you to review it and re-write it using better words. But that may just be me.


We are after all just humans not creators.

Colon after 'humans'.

So if we do put some effort and help in promoting the survival of other creature, we aren’t doing a favour, we are just doing our job.

Besides the fact that I do not agree with this point, for reasons later mentioned, 'favour' isn't a word. I do believe you mean 'favor'.

However important the above aspect may be, that is not the focus of this article is not the dominated members of nature but the dominating member; the humans of course.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. You have to be more specific and broken up. Try this again, because what you have here makes absolutely no sense (To me).

Just as survival became no Hercules task, reaching the top seemed to take a lot of time and energy.

Okay, just in case you didn't know, Hercules was a man, mythological maybe, but still a man. He represented great strength, but metaphorically speaking. Not in this sense. You could write 'Just as survival became no Herculean task, . . .', thus referring to Hercules great strength without actually using him as a direct example.

But as far as I understand, the law of nature is that the powerful protect the weak not take advantage of them. I see this age as the beginning of destruction.

Okay, so your view of the 'law of nature' is downright demented. Should a lion protect a lamb and not take advantage of it (Eat it)? No! That would be wrong. And don't say that doesn't apply here! If it applies in one spot it applies EVERYWHERE.

Hence was born the concept of exchange. This idea flourished for long but wasn’t good enough to last.

I'll rewrite this: 'This idea flourished for a long time, but it wasn't good enough to last'. Mind you you have a technical problem here. It cannot be ignored. (Also, I'd use something different in reference to the concept of exchange, you use it twice in too close proximity!).

Soon, came the idea of currency. This is seen as the beginning of the end of a selfless, open and free-flowing society.

Comma after 'open'.

Based on money, we have rich and poor, based on God; we have religion, based on power; we have the powerful and the weak and based on appearance, on one side we have the bold and the beautiful and on the other side we have the uglies.

Period instead of comma after 'poor'. Big 'b' on 'based'. Kill the comma after 'money'. Kill the semi-colon after 'God', replace the comma after 'religion' with a period. Big 'b' on 'based' . . . I think you see where I'm going. You don't have to follow this advise, it would just really help to make this paragraph easier to read and understand. Also, 'uglies', despite what you may think, is not a word.

That, I believe, covers most all of your grammar mistakes, but don't rely on me! You got to keep an eye on yourself in this!

Overall, good work! Keep up the reasoning and style, it'll get you places! And most important: Keep writing, or you're gonna go nowhere!

Hope this helped!


~Black~





Live your life how you want, but don't confuse drama with happiness.
— Ron, Parks & Rec