Why? Why not?

Maybe I'm getting madder each second, maybe not. The fact is that I am watching the film 'The Time Machine', which is an adaptation from the homonym novel by H.G. Wells. Up to that point, everything is OK, I'm not so mad yet. The problem comes when I start questioning myself the basis of that novel itself. It is a satiric novel, which tries to ridiculize Victorian society. But it states that degeneration always erodes any kind of society. It is shown by the decomposition of human race in two separate types of animals, depredators and depredated.

Up to this point, still not mad. But how can we really stop this erosion that consumes our own type of living? It is uncertain. Life goes on circles, and always come to the same point. This cyclic conception of time was already conceived by the Ancient Greeks. It is not new. We base ourselves in destruction and construction, but the only survivors are those who can really 'change the wheel' in which they are rolling, and take a new one to get to the highest point again.

That could be a good conclusion from the film, but I still have one question about the end of the novel. Why does the main character stay in the future? Degeneration is surely worse than the original. But the problem is that maybe the degenerated enchant more than the original and perfect ones. That could be an even better conclusion, don't you think?

'Sometimes, we risk what we have to get something better. Sometimes not. And we just don't get it.'