The third essay of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, the name of which gives this book its title, is one that I had to read over and over and over again until I could figure out exactly how I would write about it. This essay touches upon issues which force the reader to meditate on what it is to be human and to what extent humans should have control over their own evolutionary process. In Lewis’s previous two essays he discusses ways in which man makes determinations as to what is an acceptable standard of values. He does this by focusing on the teaching of English in upper level schools, and by uncovering a conditioning process, which by rooting itself in our institutions (like Education), creates generations that are systematically weaker against the power exerted by those who control the instruments of evolution. In Lewis’s third essay he explores why this process has been set in place–what end does it serve? What does it suggest about the nature of our species and our relationship to Nature itself?

In a mere 24 pages, Lewis applies his finely-tuned observational skills to all the information he has accumulated, as though looking at it on a table and putting the pieces together like the chronology of a time line. What he uncovers is a pattern of human behavior that deals with how we handle our natural instinct to survive. That is to say, humans, like any other species, are inherently inclined to survive. Lewis argues that the manner in which we chose to survive comes from the notion of “Man’s conquest of Nature,” which “is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science”(67). The phrase “Man’s conquest of Nature,” itself has many implications. It suggests most simply that as a species we strive to control our environment, therefore making it more suitable for human inhabitants. It also suggests the sort of relationship between man and Nature to be one of struggle given that the relationship is characterized as a “conquest”. This struggle, as Darwin would suggest, is the struggle for existence against the raw elements of nature. However, for humans, nothing can really ever be that simple. This struggle seems to be more of a struggle for a better existence, meaning that survival is about more than maintaining the status quo, but striving to be better, to be more equipped to control the environment so that it suits our standard of living- our world apart from nature. And to go beyond the status quo, to reach the level where we can control Nature itself, requires more than just basic survival skills. The pattern of behavior that Lewis uncovers delivers the key to understanding how it is that humans go about their “conquest of Nature” and to what end it really serves.

But how is it that we aim to “conquer” Nature? Lewis suggests that our goal to control our environment, our conquest, is attained through advancements in applied science. What is considered applied science? In this essay, Lewis uses “three typical examples”(68) to explain the sort of applied science to which he is referring: “the aeroplane, the wireless and the contraceptive”(68). Each of these represents a way in which science has overcome natural obstacles to make human life more comfortable and more suitable to social norms. However, Lewis is not concerned with the fact that they exist–there is much good use for science–but rather how these little feats of nature function within the human community, how they are regulated and who controls them. One finds that access to items like the ones mentioned before, these tangible little powers over nature, is granted to “anyone who can pay for them”(68). And so, one finds that “what we call man’s power over nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument”(69). It is here that the pattern Lewis isolates emerges as the prevalent driving motivation for “Man’s conquest of Nature”. In his previous two essays Lewis discusses the process by which man regulates an acceptable standard of values through the teaching of English in upper level schools. The powers that be debunk certain “unacceptable” reactions, which tend to be emotional responses, and replace these with logical, rational reactions that are routed in reason instead of sentimentality. This is a process by which man chooses what is considered unacceptable and then opts to replace it with whatever standard is considered acceptable. This process, most simply explained, is a way to pick and chose how humans should behave. This then begs the question of who decides what is acceptable and how can it be implemented? Furthermore, how does this pattern of behavior relate to “Man’s conquest of Nature”?

Before diving into this question, it must be noted that big picture questions require big picture responses and big picture analysis. When I say big picture, I do not mean that lightly–Lewis contends that to fully understand the logistics of this power struggle between men, one must look at the species from its beginning all the way to the date of its extinction. That is to say, Lewis places great emphasis on the idea that the battle to conquer Nature is really a fight among men for the power to control Nature. And so to really understand how men relate to one another and how the conquest of Nature fits into this relation, it is necessary to look at all men to identify a pattern of behavior. Using such a wide lens to observe and analyze further suggests that the relation among men which is at stake in this battle is really the relationship between successive generations. Every generation exerts a certain amount of control over its succeeding generations. Every generation aims to create a world in which their successors can live better, more comfortable lives, and by creating its own version of the world, the generation in power creates a certain set of rules that govern what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in that world. Each generation of man, while exerting a sort of control over future generations is at the same time resisting the control that the previous generations have exerted upon it. That is to say, when each generation tries to create their own version of the world, they are by default trying to eradicate the rules of the world set forth by the previous generation. So every generation, by trying to create their own world, is in fact resisting the old one. When the conquest of Nature is added to this already contradictory and complicated relationship between men, one finds that the control over succeeding generations has the potential to become far more precise and lasting. The pattern of behavior that is found in this relationship among men becomes the manner in which man handles his control over Nature with regard to his own evolutionary process. Lewis argues that as mankind becomes more advanced in the area of applied sciences and furthers the kind of controls it has over Nature and itself, one finds that, “the final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself”(72). That is to say, firstly that when enough advancements have been made in applied sciences, the pattern of exercising control over future generations to ensure a better existence turns its sights on mankind itself, so that each generation can actually put institutions in place that will actually determine what is acceptable to be as a human. To be more precise, “human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will be won.”(72)

In 1947, when this book was first published, there is no way Lewis could have known what advancements in applied sciences would bring. His prediction that man will actually obtain the power to physically alter the make-up of future generations I find absolutely startling. Today one could look to the huge studies of human DNA codes, which scientists are continually trying to break so as to understand our genetic make-up. They also aim to find ways to identify the imperfections in the code, which present themselves as hereditary illnesses, and then to find ways of mending those imperfections so as to create stronger generations of human beings. It is important work indeed, but this essay makes me wonder whether we should be dabbling with our wiring at all. Once humans have achieved the capacity to essentially edit their wiring, then the conquest of Nature, “the battle will be won,” but “who, precisely, will have won it?”(72). Let us take pause here for a moment, while there is space, to ponder this: to what end does this victory serve? Lewis mentions earlier in his essay that in order to fully understand the way in which “Man’s conquest of Nature” is implemented among men, we must look at the species generational relationships from its beginning to its end, that is, its extinction. So let us consider this process which allows us to manipulate ourselves; we see that by following Lewis’ logic, this process is really the one we naturally follow, inevitably leading us to our own demise, almost as though it cannot be helped. The title of this essay alone suggests the true outcome of this battle with Nature: the abolition of man.

Though I am in almost no way opposed to scientific advancements and research, I am inclined to agree with Lewis. Firstly, the foresight he demonstrates in this essay leaves me feeling both appreciative and uneasy at the same time. I am grateful because he took the time to explore this issue in a very matter-of-fact sort of way that is not only well thought out, organized and carefully strung together, but also makes me think honestly about a greater question concerning my species--our species–to which we are all inevitably tied. What makes me uneasy concerns the relationship between Nature and man and this seemingly inherent inclination to separate ourselves from nature so as to conquer it, as though it was never a part of us at all. I think Lewis’s argument deserves merit and I also think that the examples he highlights, which exemplify the pattern of behavior that will ultimately lead to the abolition of man, are the best ones he could have chosen to justify his point of view. One of the reasons I found it so difficult to write about this essay was because I found myself agreeing with what he was saying and not knowing how to say it differently; he explains it so eloquently and so logically that to recount his argument almost seems unnecessary. I would urge anyone reading this article to read for themselves the full version of The Abolition of Man for two reasons specifically: firstly, and most importantly, reading the essays by Lewis would inspire the reader to ponder, as I did, whether or not humans should be dabbling with their own evolutionary process, that is to say, whether humans should take over that role from Nature so as to determine the best course of evolution for all mankind; secondly, anyone reading this article would benefit more from reading the actual text itself because, while I try to be as comprehensive as possible, Lewis’s words themselves should be read and should be known to people. The questions he is dealing with in this essay are important and should be dealt with by all humans, not just by one dead intellectual and one silly college girl. That is to say, “I’m not just talking about one person, I’m talking about everybody. I’m talking about form. I’m talking about content. I’m talking about interrelationships. I’m talking about God, the devil, Hell, Heaven. Do you understand… FINALLY?” (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, 1975; quotation from character “Harding”).  This is an issue that EVERYONE should be talking about because it concerns the survival of our very species; it deals with our very existence itself. It should not be, it cannot be ignored or else perhaps we will prove Lewis right in the end and destroy ourselves by becoming our own gods, by taking the reigns over life away from Nature and controlling every aspect of our world so that it suits us alone–leaving Nature to fend for itself against the raw elements of mankind.

The main issue that most people have with this idea is that there is no problem if man tries to conquer Nature. In fact many people would argue that because of our superior intellect, that we should or ought to conquer it. Perhaps this is correct…but I find myself agreeing with Lewis on this one. Instead of trying to conquer Nature, we should find a way to co-exist with it. Now, I am not saying that we return to a life of “hunters and gatherers” because that simply wouldn’t work as a method of survival in today’s society. However, we can apply the same principles to modern society–that is to say, we can find a way to not be wasteful, to consume only what is necessary and to evolve with Nature and not against it. I am frightened by the idea that mankind feels it is not a part of Nature, but in fact something separate. This is wrong. Human beings are natural beings and we are therefore always going to be tied to Nature and to a greater natural order. I think it is wrong to try to force a separation between man and Nature, to try to become beings that are not natural, but instead entirely man-made. Ultimately, I do not think that man should have that kind of power. I do not think that men should be gods; they certainly ought not be their own gods. I think that the greater natural order exists for a reason–that like every cycle there is a beginning and an end and the sooner we accept that, the better off we will be and the longer we will survive.

However, when we do discuss this issue, and I say “when” because some part of me is still an idealist (because I am young after all), we must be able to look at the situation as Lewis did, as the big picture, as though it is spread out in front of us on a table so that we can see all the pieces fit together. At the conclusion of his essay, Lewis leaves the reader with advice as to how to go about addressing the issues he discusses in his essay. He does not explicitly say that his words are meant for that purpose, but I feel they are important enough to deliver to you here because these words ought to serve that function:

You cannot go on ’seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ’see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ’see through’ all this is the same as not to see. (1)

To say the least, this essay leaves me in a state of wandering contemplation and I enjoy it, ultimately, because it makes me think on a more profound level, not only about the content of this essay, but also the manner in which it was written. Looking at this piece as a writer I see a logically outlined argument that comes across as very honest. It seems to me that the manner in which Lewis presents these three essays, which are in fact actually lectures that he gave, functions as an offering to humanity, a mission statement of sorts, for future generations to regard as a reminder that we are humans, physical beings, and we are inevitably bound to our finite existences as mere parts of a greater natural order. That is to say, that in the battle between Man and Nature, Nature will win out every time, in spite of how advanced we may become. If we ought to do anything, then we ought to accept that first.

(1) C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man; Collier Books, 1962; p. 91;