All of nature listens to gut instinct, but humans often ignore that voice

By David McElroy · October 7, 2018

I’ve been watching this squirrel outside my bedroom window Sunday afternoon as he gathers food to prepare for the coming winter months.

He scurries around on the ground, looking for nuts worth collecting. Once he finds another prize, he rushes back to a tree and climbs to another larger tree nearby. He disappears into the thick branches and leaves — so I can’t see exactly where his hiding place is — but I can picture it filling up with nuts like the one you see here.

He’s cautious. When he hears a noise, he freezes until he’s sure the danger’s gone. Then he goes back to work.

Watching this squirrel gather food for the winter — something I’ve seen squirrels do ever since I was old enough to pay attention to them — leaves me thinking again about how every part of nature has instincts about what it ought to do and be. But how do they know what to do?

How does the squirrel know that winter is coming? How does he know that the plentiful food available now will become scarce? How does he know to collect food to be prepared for those months?

Squirrels don’t go to school to be educated in life skills. They don’t have libraries with the collected knowledge of the squirrel world from which to learn. They don’t get lectures from parents who who made mistakes. It’s far simpler for them.

They just listen to a gut instinct — a voice in Nature which allows them to live as they were intended to live.

Every animal does this. Every plant does it, too. They’re not conscious of us, but they wouldn’t question it if they could. They just do what they were created to do.

This leaves me wondering — not for the first time — why humans are the only creatures on the planet who have learned to set aside that voice of instinct. And it makes me wonder what we’ve lost by learning to listen to friends and parents and teachers and media instead. What have we lost as we’ve stopped listening to our instincts?

We’re so sophisticated that we have narratives to explain why the squirrels and birds and trees do what they’re programmed to do. We pat ourselves on the back for understanding that evolution has rewarded the plants and animals which happen to do the right things. We’re so proud for understanding that this instinct is just the result of pure dumb luck of descending from creatures who happened to do the right thing.

We think we’re so sophisticated that our reason and our culture override that voice. We ignore the inner voice that tells us what we need. We eventually forget it’s even there. In time, we’re pretty much deaf to it.

We listen to media tell us what we need. Advertising tells us what’s wrong with us and what we need to fix about our looks. It tells us what products we need to buy to signal to others what sort of people we are. We listen to our friends and family about what we ought to value.

But for some reason, society is getting sicker. Individuals are more unhappy and more disconnected, despite attaining more and more of what the media tells us to attain. People kill themselves at alarming rates, because they no longer want to live in this culture of plenty. They have money and possessions, but they feel empty inside — and they don’t know why.

What if this squirrel is smarter than you and I are? What if he’s happy and satisfied listening to what his instinct tells him to be — when you and I are so concerned about everything else that we’ve forgotten to listen to our own inner voice?

You do the things you do every day because your culture has trained you, not because it serves your real needs. We all do things we don’t want to do — and ignore our real needs — because we’re listening to culture instead of our inner voice.

Your inner voice knows what you need. It tells you who you need, what love you need, what really matters. Same for me. On some level, we know what we ought to be and what we ought to be doing and who we ought to be with.

I’m glad I’m not a squirrel. I appreciate the ability to think abstractly and question everything. I’m thankful we’re smart enough to build homes and provide ourselves with heat and air conditioning. There’s a lot that our ability to think has brought us.

But I fear we’ve lost a lot, too. I fear we’ve lost the ability to follow what matters most to our ultimate success. I know that inner voice is still there, though. We can learn to hear it again if we’ll open our hearts and really listen.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts