Answer and Explanation:
How do the dog's instinctive actions compare to the man's rational ones?
Just by relying on his instincts, the dog is able to survive. He may not know how things work or why they are the way they are, but he knows what to do and when to do it. For instance, he knows that, if the man fails to build a fire, he (the dog) can dig himself a hole in the snow to keep himself warm until the next morning.
The man, on the other hand, makes blunder after blunder by relying on his judgment. To be fair, it is his arrogance that gets in the way. He seems to have lost respect for nature, trusting his own skills and knowledge too much. Unfortunately, that is what leads him to his death. Had he been humbler, had he been respectful and acknowledged the power of nature, his fate could have been different.
What do you think London is trying to tell us about the difference between human and animal abilities to survive?
In a sense, animals seem to be more intelligent than humans. Our intellect is somehow keeping us further and further apart from our instincts. We are becoming less effective in surviving because we are becoming less respectful toward nature. Animals, on the other hand, know their own limitations. They know when to walk, when to stop, when to rest, when to look for food. They have not lost contact with what they ancestors, so to speak, learned. They have it in them, naturally, effortlessly. That seems to be one of the themes London explores in this story.
