The Lowest Animal Summary Essay Example for Free

Even the from the shadows readily see how their game of chicken with Earth may turn out. Their more extreme members advocate terraforming Mars as their ultimate survival enclave if their games of power and control make Earth uninhabitable. But the saner members, who may now be a , favor the dissemination of those sequestered technologies. I am nearly certain that members of that disenchanted faction are those who gave my close friend an and who would quietly . They may also be subtly supporting my current efforts, of which this essay comprises a key component, but I have not heard from them and am not counting on them to save the day or help my efforts garner success. It is time for humanity to reach the level of collective sentience and integrity required to manifest humanity’s , which will initiate the Free Energy Epoch. Humanity can then live, for the first time, in an epoch of true and sustainable abundance. It could also halt the and humanity could turn Earth into something resembling heaven. With the Fifth Epochal Event, humanity will become a space-faring species, and a future will beckon that nobody on Earth today can truly imagine, just as nobody on Earth could predict how the previous Epochal Events transformed the human journey (, , , ).

“The Lowest Animal” by Mark Twain

The respiration and photosynthesis cycles in complex organisms have been the focus of a great deal of scientific effort, and cyclic diagrams (, ) can provide helpful portrayals of how cycles work. Photosynthesis has several cycles in it, and Nobel Prizes were awarded to the scientists who helped describe the cycles. Chlorophyll molecules , with magnesium in their porphyrin cages, and long tails. Below is a diagram of a chlorophyll molecule. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)


The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain Essay - 780 Words

Twain also shows how humans are the only animals who enslave and rob his fellow human and exterminates his own kind.

I would crave leave to ask your lordship, were there ever in the world any atheists or no? If there were not, what need is there of raising a question about the being of a God, when nobody questions it? What need of provisional arguments against a fault, from which mankind are so wholly free, and which, by an universal consent, they may be presumed to be secure from? If you say (as I doubt not but you will) that there have been atheists in the world, then your lordship’s universal consent reduces itself to only a great majority; and then make that majority as great as you will, what I have said in the place quoted by your lordship, leaves it in its full force; and I have not said one word that does in the least invalidate this argument for a God. The argument I was upon there, was to show, that the idea of God was not innate; and to my purpose it was sufficient, if there were but a less number found in the world, who had no idea of God, than your lordship will allow there have been of professed atheists; for whatsoever is innate, must be universal in the strictest sense. One exception is a sufficient proof against it. So that all that I said, and which was quite to another purpose, did not at all tend, nor can be made use of, to invalidate the argument for a Deity, grounded on such an universal consent, as your lordship, and all that build on it, must own; which is only a very disproportioned majority; such an universal consent my argument there neither affirms nor requires to be less than you will be pleased to allow it. Your lordship therefore might, without any prejudice to those declarations of good will and favour you have for the author of the “Essay of Human Understanding,” have spared the mentioning his quoting authors that are in print, for matters of fact to quite another purpose, “as going about to invalidate the argument for a Deity, from the universal consent of mankind;” since he leaves that universal consent as entire and as large as you yourself do, or can own, or suppose it. But here I have no reason to be sorry that your lordship has given me this occasion for the vindication of this passage of my book; if there should be any one besides your lordship, who should so far mistake it, as to think it in the least invalidates the argument for a God, from the universal consent of mankind.