Today, a baby squirrel was found on the grounds of the campus. Most tried to save the animal by taking it to the vet, while some others protested to the validity of "natural selection." This raised an important question: where does humanitarianism end and meddling begin?

Humanitarianism is defined as "the care and promotion of human welfare and social reform." The common definition is broader, encompassing the natural world as well. It seems that the humanitarian thing to do would be to worry for the squirrel's welfare and take it to the doctor.

Yet, what of nature? When would this kind of activity end? Would we eventually raise animals in captivity so that they would not attack and wound their young? By taking care of this squirrel we may be part of a class of "well-intentioned, but misguided" people. Take, for example, the story that I'm sure we've all heard from Dr. Bill. Remember the story of the elderly lady that tried to throw a glass bottle at two ducks because she thought one duck was drowning the other, when in fact they were mating?

It is things like this that makes me question just who we think we are. Supposing the squirrel fell off the branch, or the mother pushed it off. Who are we to interfere with gravity or nature?

Yet, it could merely be an act of kindness, an instinctive reaction from the maternal instinct locked within us. By taking care of this squirrel we could prove that we are human and not animals, capable of loving and caring for others.

This essential conflict is repeated over and over in history, especially in America's history. Many wars have been fought because we felt that we were doing the right thing, protecting the weak. Yet is all this just residual guilt from things that we've done that we wish we could take back? Not acting fast enough in World War 2? Who knows the depths of man's subconscious?

But then again, it is just a squirrel.