On homes

This article raised several interesting questions in regards to animal and human architecture. I do not believe that mankind’s architecture is entirely instinctual. I also don’t think it’s entirely based on our race’s intelligence, and as far as animals are concerned, I don’t believe they fall into only one of the two proposed categories. Animal’s homes are indeed aesthetic. I’m sure that’s relative to some extent, not everyone will be moved by the contours of a beehive. But they are at the very least, intriguing. The appeal an animal’s home is able to convey I attribute not to the creature’s instinct, as the creature is not likely able to consider aesthetics in the ways we do. The efficiency of the home perhaps exists at a far more instinctual level. This is all my best attempt at speculation, mind. Humankind on the other hand, works in a far different caliber. Yes, animal homes are generally effective for their given purpose, but human architecture is often designed to serve multiple purposes. Animal homes are not as plural in their purposes. Humans also consider how this structure can be designed not only for ultimate efficiency, but for ultimate aesthetics. Now, of course there is sometimes a compromise. Sometimes we must be loose with aesthetics for sake of efficiency. Or perhaps we disregard efficiency as its role is not as eminent as aesthetics. In all this though, I am reminded that both mankind and the animal kingdom alike dress this world in such wonderful and ornate objects, with such finesse and accuracy, that I must consider the wonder of their brilliant Maker.