I can't understand this.
Whatever man attempts to do, unless he is careful enough to take necessary precautions and have constant monitoring, the end will never be a success. Whereas, whatever other forms of life attempts, unless some calamity occurs, will end in success and that too with hardly any need for precautions or supervision. Isn't this the main difference between humans and other forms of life?
Take eating habits. Unless one takes care to find out, one can never know that there is a need to examine whatever is there to eat. And only on examination will be known whether it is fit for eating. More than that, unless one eats food chosen in a particular manner, one may land up with health problems and deficiencies.
In short, humans have no natural ability even to feed oneself well.
If we examine further, it can be easily seen that we have no natural ability to mate well or to think well. It should be clear from the above that, in earlier days we have been giving vent to our natural talents in thoughts and actions, resulting in skirmishes, wars and pestilence. Only by invoking the superior aspects of our thinking, like spiritual initiatives, that we are able to channel our thoughts in a rather meaningful direction.
My doubt is, what are we naturally good at?
Is it art? Which is closely connected with beauty, which, philosophers say is but an excuse for making something desirable, overlooking its lack of utility.
If it isn't, what else?
I think our forefathers knew the answer, that we are good for nothing. Or at least, they had the inkling that humans are not the ones at the top. For the old religions and cultures, you see, all the super natural beings and other entities of worship are animals and beasts. Isn’t it possible that the early humans installed as deities whatever they found magnificent, terrific or awesome? Or, those worthy of emulation?