Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
What Binti Jua Knew
by Barbara J. King - Washington Post
Thanks to acitta1 for the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403049.html?referrer=emailarticle
What Binti Jua Knew
By Barbara J. King
A toddler falls over a railing, 24 feet down, into the gorilla enclosure of the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago. There he lies, unconscious, among seven apes, some with poundage and power exceeding that of an adult man. As one of them approaches the boy, onlookers tense.
But Binti Jua, an 8-year-old female gorilla, picks up the boy, and, carrying him along with her own infant, gently hands him over to zoo staff.
This stunning event in 1996 earned Binti Jua global headlines (and can be seen, if in grainy video, on YouTube). It was an incident that no one who witnessed it -- in person or online -- could forget. But there was nothing about Binti Jua, or any of the chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans that exhibit reasoning and empathy, in Russell Paul La Valle's July 27 op-ed, " Why They're Human Rights."
La Valle argued that the Spanish Parliament should not award human rights to apes, as it is considering. He opened with a throwaway line about monkeys in the circus -- and made his first mistake. First of all, monkeys' bodies are smaller than those of apes, their thinking is less complex and they are more distantly related to humans. But a far more serious error was La Valle's assertion that apes are "irrational, amoral."
In an echo of 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes' dualism, La Valle invoked a strict dividing line between humans, who reason, and animals that rely on "instinctual, inherited knowledge of how to survive." It's clear that La Valle hasn't spent much time with apes lately -- or looking into any of the major findings by primate scientists over the past two or three decades. In expressing reasoning and empathy, Binti Jua was not unique; nor was her behavior an artifact of zoo life. Wild chimpanzees plan ahead and carry tools to work sites, where they crack open hard-shelled nuts with wood and stone hammers. They choose sides thoughtfully in ongoing competitions for status and reward friends' loyalties while exacting revenge on their enemies. When close companions suffer wounds or injuries, wild chimpanzees groom and care for them.
This compassion by chimpanzees, it must be said, is at times matched by their outright cruelty to each other. What species does that remind you of?)
Captive orangutans modify their own gestures according to how much a human companion seems to comprehend their requests. Bonobos use a symbol-laden computer keyboard to discuss with their caretakers plans for the day, as well as to make promises about being "good."
The apes that I have described, and many more that my fellow primatologists write about, are neither irrational nor amoral. The zoologist and ethologist Frans de Waal has argued that the origins of morality can be found in our primate cousins, and my own anthropological work suggests that the evolutionary roots of today's human religiosity can be found in the ape world.
It's important to correct La Valle's misunderstanding of apes, but not because I'm a fervent supporter of legalizing rights for animals. The question is complex and arguable: whether to award rights to apes or to assume responsibility for apes' welfare. But while writers such as La Valle bandy words about and academics such as I discuss the philosophical aspects of rights, the great apes are dying.
The combined forces of poaching, diseases such as ebola fever, habitat destruction and the trade in bushmeat are killing off the apes at unprecedented rates. If we write them off as irrational and amoral animals, we will fail to grasp the depth of their suffering at the hands of our own species -- a suffering that is cognitive and emotional as well as physical.
Barbara J. King is a professor of anthropology at the College of William and Mary and is the author of "Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403049.html?referrer=emailarticle
What Binti Jua Knew
By Barbara J. King
A toddler falls over a railing, 24 feet down, into the gorilla enclosure of the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago. There he lies, unconscious, among seven apes, some with poundage and power exceeding that of an adult man. As one of them approaches the boy, onlookers tense.
But Binti Jua, an 8-year-old female gorilla, picks up the boy, and, carrying him along with her own infant, gently hands him over to zoo staff.
This stunning event in 1996 earned Binti Jua global headlines (and can be seen, if in grainy video, on YouTube). It was an incident that no one who witnessed it -- in person or online -- could forget. But there was nothing about Binti Jua, or any of the chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans that exhibit reasoning and empathy, in Russell Paul La Valle's July 27 op-ed, " Why They're Human Rights."
La Valle argued that the Spanish Parliament should not award human rights to apes, as it is considering. He opened with a throwaway line about monkeys in the circus -- and made his first mistake. First of all, monkeys' bodies are smaller than those of apes, their thinking is less complex and they are more distantly related to humans. But a far more serious error was La Valle's assertion that apes are "irrational, amoral."
In an echo of 17th-century philosopher Rene Descartes' dualism, La Valle invoked a strict dividing line between humans, who reason, and animals that rely on "instinctual, inherited knowledge of how to survive." It's clear that La Valle hasn't spent much time with apes lately -- or looking into any of the major findings by primate scientists over the past two or three decades. In expressing reasoning and empathy, Binti Jua was not unique; nor was her behavior an artifact of zoo life. Wild chimpanzees plan ahead and carry tools to work sites, where they crack open hard-shelled nuts with wood and stone hammers. They choose sides thoughtfully in ongoing competitions for status and reward friends' loyalties while exacting revenge on their enemies. When close companions suffer wounds or injuries, wild chimpanzees groom and care for them.
This compassion by chimpanzees, it must be said, is at times matched by their outright cruelty to each other. What species does that remind you of?)
Captive orangutans modify their own gestures according to how much a human companion seems to comprehend their requests. Bonobos use a symbol-laden computer keyboard to discuss with their caretakers plans for the day, as well as to make promises about being "good."
The apes that I have described, and many more that my fellow primatologists write about, are neither irrational nor amoral. The zoologist and ethologist Frans de Waal has argued that the origins of morality can be found in our primate cousins, and my own anthropological work suggests that the evolutionary roots of today's human religiosity can be found in the ape world.
It's important to correct La Valle's misunderstanding of apes, but not because I'm a fervent supporter of legalizing rights for animals. The question is complex and arguable: whether to award rights to apes or to assume responsibility for apes' welfare. But while writers such as La Valle bandy words about and academics such as I discuss the philosophical aspects of rights, the great apes are dying.
The combined forces of poaching, diseases such as ebola fever, habitat destruction and the trade in bushmeat are killing off the apes at unprecedented rates. If we write them off as irrational and amoral animals, we will fail to grasp the depth of their suffering at the hands of our own species -- a suffering that is cognitive and emotional as well as physical.
Barbara J. King is a professor of anthropology at the College of William and Mary and is the author of "Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion."
Comments 1 - 50 of 118 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #235660 by mordacious1 on August 23, 2008 at 11:16 am
Binti Jua was quoted as saying, "Would you people please watch your kids more carefully? I'm trying to set a good example here". Other Comments by mordacious1
3. Comment #235711 by NewEnglandBob on August 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Can we trade? We can extend rights to Apes but take them away from religious fundamentalists. Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
4. Comment #235715 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I'm sure all the spending on healthcare for PVS patients would be more than enough to cover great ape conservancy.Other Comments by kkelly
5. Comment #235723 by Cartomancer on August 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm
What I don't understand is what the opposition lobby stand to gain from NOT extending human rights to the great apes and, proportionally, to other animals?Is cruelty to animals a lucrative business in Spain? Will people's jobs suffer if orangs and bonobos and gorillas are afforded extra legal protections?
Do they think that it will somehow destroy the whole concept of human rights, rather than strengthening it by extending it further afield than it previously was? Is it rather like the gay marriage "issue" in that respect, where conservative bigots seem to think that if gay people can marry then straight people's suddenly marriages won't mean anything?
Why would anyone be against such a measure?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
6. Comment #235731 by petrucio on August 23, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Not only is it completely wrong to say they are irrational and amoral, but taking it a step further, even amongst freethinkers, almost everyone I know of seems to take as granted that humans are the only self-conscious/self-aware species.I know that goes way beyond being rational or moral, but I think it's a much more important question, and harder to answer. Maybe impossible to answer. But most just assume otherwise without even pondering it.
And is a question that we better learn to ponder, since we'll probably have to deal with it in some decades, when machines pass the Turing test. (Have I started a flame war?)
Other Comments by petrucio
7. Comment #235756 by posiedon on August 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Cartomancer.
Is cruelty to animals a lucrative business in Spain?
You'd better believe it! Bullfighting anyone?
Other Comments by posiedon
8. Comment #235757 by beeline on August 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm
This whole issue becomes somewhat of a minefield when we try to address rights without also addressing responsibilities, because neither makes much sense without the other.What are the responsibilities of a gorilla, living in the wild or in a zoo? How can we gauge their place in our (or their) society well enough to be clear about what we can do to them, and what we can expect from them?
Obviously a wild gorilla can quite easily kill a human, given sufficient cause - a person appearing to threaten its young, for example - but it's going to be impossible to break the idea of restraint to gorillas so that people aren't killed. Our moral and ethical codes wouldn't make much sense to them, and why should they?
Giving rights to something that isn't as smart as us is a very, very sticky area. Not that I don't think they deserve rights, mind you, but that's more of a personal, emotional issue, rather than one that I could easily 'rationalise'.
Other Comments by beeline
9. Comment #235765 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm
"Giving rights to something that isn't as smart as us is a very, very sticky area."I've worked with MANY species of animals in many environments. And while this is said a bit in jest, it's also a bit true that most non-human animals I've worked with are far smarter than many religious fundamentalists I've worked with.
"Obviously a wild gorilla can quite easily kill a human, given sufficient cause"
True, but far fewer gorillas will kill a man without sufficient cause while men kill men with virtually no reason at all.
Other Comments by J Mac
10. Comment #235768 by Duff on August 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The issue is that if they are given "rights", it will be more difficult to experiment on them. Not as simple a question as it appears on the surface. There are two competing spheres at work here: science and humanity. Care to choose a side?Other Comments by Duff
11. Comment #235775 by beeline on August 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm
True, but far fewer gorillas will kill a man without sufficient cause while men kill men with virtually no reason at all.
And they all trample over their victims' rights, of course, and are justifiably punished for it.
That's the other problem too - whether transgressing the rights of one is worth it to preserve the rights of many, and not even of the same species. This brings in things like animal testing (monkey brains), epidemic prevention (ebola, foot-and-mouth, influenza, etc.) and even domestic breeding in extreme cases.
It's almost impossible to have a well-defined idea of 'rights' in the light of all these activities. It'll be very interested to hear what the Spanish courts make of it, and if anyone else tries it.
Other Comments by beeline
12. Comment #235776 by robotaholic on August 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Duff - science Other Comments by robotaholic
14. Comment #235778 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm
"The issue is that if they are given "rights", it will be more difficult to experiment on them."Oh?
Ever try to get a primate research proposal through an IACUC? It's already easier to experiment on humans as humans can give consent.
Other Comments by J Mac
15. Comment #235782 by Lemniscate on August 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Cartomancer, I think a lot of the opposition to ape rights comes from the implicit admission that humans are not quite as uniquely moral and emotional as many think. This feeling of the wondrous uniqueness of human morality is a well ingrained one, unfortunately for the apes. Other Comments by Lemniscate
16. Comment #235799 by SilentMike on August 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm
If an ape who saves a baby is moral and worthy of praise, is an ape who kills a baby worthy of scorn? Would you put ape killers and ape rapists (of other apes) in ape jail? If an animal is not amoral then it should be seen as potentially immoral. Chimps can be quite nasty. They use violence to get their way, kill each other, and have been known to practice cannibalism. We're talking about full human rights here, and not just some limited version of so called "animal rights". If a chimpanzee has human rights then his tormentor, whether human or a fellow chimpanzee, should be held accountable. It seems to me that there is no avoiding the fact that this coin has two sides.Other Comments by SilentMike
17. Comment #235806 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Ahh, where'd my post go. Lemme try again:"Chimps can be quite nasty. They use violence to get their way, kill each other, and have been known to practice cannibalism."
The same can be said of humans.
"Would you put ape killers and ape rapists (of other apes) in ape jail?"
There is a difference between homicide and justified killing. The last several people I've met who killed other people got medals not prison sentences.
If you're going to look at both sides of the coin, use the same glasses.
Other Comments by J Mac
18. Comment #235808 by Diacanu on August 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Silentmike-
Would you put ape killers and ape rapists (of other apes) in ape jail?
That's up to the ape cops and ape judges.
Other Comments by Diacanu
19. Comment #235809 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Don't worry, folks, they're not going to move in next door and start taking up your parking spaces. :) edit: I have to add, I'm with the ethicists on this, since plenty of scientific research can continue, which will be beneficial to humans. Chimpanzees differ genetically from us by 1.23%. I've read that some chimps' cognitive level is like toddlers or pre-schoolers. Maybe JMac or someone else will know. They're not going to be subject to the same laws as adult humans. Here is a link and a copy of the declaration as it was proposed to the Spanish parliament. I don't know for sure if it was modified or not.
http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php
We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.
The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:
1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.
2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.
3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
20. Comment #235813 by SilentMike on August 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm
17. Comment #235806 by J MacThe same can be said of humans.
So?
That doesn't address my point. I was saying that if a Chimpanzee can be a victim of a crime, why not a perpetrator? Are we to treat Chimpanzees who kill other Chimpanzees (or humans) as murders? If apes can be good, than they can be bad. If they can be murdered, then they can murder. Are you ready to hold them accountable? Are you ready to protect them, and their human rights (ape rights?) from each other?
...justified killing
Again, this is an evasion and not an answer.
I seriously doubt all chimpanzee violence can be considered justified. If you see apes as having moral responsibiliy, how can you justify the killing of young? How can you justify the forming of raiding parties that kill members of neighbouring groups? Of course we don't worry about that stuff when we talk about "animals". We don't care that lions that take over a pride kill their predcessors' young. Lions don't have human rights. But if apes have the same legal rights as humans...
As I read your answer the jist of it is "humans are nasty too". OK. I'll grant you that. Humans can be very nasty. That, however, is completely beside the point. The point is whether or not apes should be held morally and legaly accountable for their nastyness, as humans are.
Other Comments by SilentMike
21. Comment #235814 by Border Collie on August 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
How many of you saw Children of Men? How did you feel when there were no children in the world? How would you feel if there were no chimps, no tigers, no gorillas, no elephants? The answer lies in there. Other Comments by Border Collie
22. Comment #235815 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
No the "humans are nasty" part was meant to be humorous, though it is true.My point was:
"If you see apes as having moral responsibiliy, how can you justify the killing of young? How can you justify the forming of raiding parties that kill members of neighbouring groups?"
We don't have any trouble justifying it when humans do it. So why should there be a problem justifying when chimps do it?
If you can show me the animal correlate of homicide I'd be awfully impressed. It just doesn't happen. They do go to war, but so do we. In fact our wars are much more brutal than theirs, and for much less significant reasons.
Other Comments by J Mac
23. Comment #235816 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I imagine, SilentMike, that this will open up a new branch of judiciary specialty and rehabilitation. Many apes already live "in jail" and they haven't done anything. Your "tone" as I read it sounded a bit scornful. Extending them human rights and constructing laws to protect them from that vantage point may considerably reduce their suffering and improve the lives of captive apes. In some situations, if a captive ape commits a crime, presumably there will be rehabilitation rather than "jail" and we may learn something from those processes that help us understand ourselves better. The main thing right now is that these creatures are endangered in the wild and getting governmental support to create and enforce protective laws is critical to their species survival -- typical animal rights laws are quite inadequate or they wouldn't still be endangered.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
24. Comment #235817 by J Mac on August 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm
They are not going to put on business suits and sip starbucks capaccionos while reading the new york times. They are chimps. They have their own society and their own culture. China's laws are different than america's laws. Japan's laws are different yet. Extending rights to an individual does not mean that they have to be assimilated into our culture.... THAT would be cruel. Other Comments by J Mac
25. Comment #235818 by hawt4dawk on August 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm
24. Comment #235817 by J Mac well, except for Starbucks calendars. :)
Border Collie -- no wonder my husband says I will be upset by "TChildren of Men", but should still see it. I didn't realize their were no children in the world. Don't tell me anymore! :)
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
26. Comment #235823 by Ishruul on August 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Human's right to apes?
Is it possible geneticians or biologist found out that it's now possible to breed with the great apes, therefore, being the same specie by extension giving them logically the same right as human.
Baby hybrid should be consider human or apes?
Stalin should have used gorillas!
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Love-Weird-Facts/210461
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25883
Science is fun!
Other Comments by Ishruul
27. Comment #235830 by Ishruul on August 23, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Wait a sec, does that mean some missionaries can go get pawned by a tribe of silver back gorilla?
I'd really like to see that ;)
Other Comments by Ishruul
28. Comment #235839 by A on August 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I have heard this story innumerable times and it often irks me that we only ever hear one side of the story.What is rarely reported is that earlier in the same month (August 1996) when the three year old boy took this awful fall into the enclosure, knocking his head and badly concussing himself - only to be tended to by Binti Jua and taken to one of the keepers access doors so he could receive treatment from 'his own kind'- an equally tense situation unfolded in Dickinson, North Dakota.
A six year old girl, called Mary-Anne Lee, out of sight of her mother, similarly climbed the ape enclosure barrier at Dickinson City Zoo and, after losing her balance, fell almost 18 feet onto a largely concrete floor. In a terrible echo of the Chicago incident she was also rendered unconscious by the fall after hitting her head on one of the enclosure's 'feeding stations'.
Panicked onlookers watched as the adult apes, both male and female, approached where she had landed, possibly curious, possibly feeling threatened by her presence. It is worth noting that an adult male ape when threatened is very easily capable of killing an adult man, a small child would stand little chance in an attack.
The apes approached the child but, only feet from her still body, backed off and gathered into a group, almost as if collectively communicating their apparent 'concern' at what they had found. A minute or so later the group broke from their nestled pack and one by one lowered themselves to their knees, clasped their hands in front of themselves and prayed to Australopithecus for the girl to be carried safely to the 'outer kingdom'.
Keepers took almost 1 hour and 40 minutes to disperse the 'congregation', but the extended worship and failure to reach the girl in time led to her death from head injuries sustained in the fall.
The apes now have a chapel named in her honour.
Other Comments by A
29. Comment #235841 by Nova on August 23, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Comment 6 petrucio,It's ridiculous to suggest that such a massive thing as self-awareness could all be wedged in the tiny developmental gap between us and the other apes, I know that my fellow apes have self-awareness as surely as I know my fellow humans do.
beeline:
address rights without also addressing responsibilitiesHow silly, name the responsibilities of a human baby, I can name the rights.
Other Comments by Nova
30. Comment #235842 by NewEnglandBob on August 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
...name the responsibilities of a human baby...
Sleep, urinate, eat, spit up, defecate, cry?
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
31. Comment #235844 by jshuey on August 23, 2008 at 7:46 pm
While the behavior of our fellow apes can be described as "neither irrational nor amoral", they certainly cannot be described as human.
They are owed the same consideration due all living creatures...kindness and humane treatment...nothing more and nothing less.
Attempting to extend to them "human rights" denigrates the very concept.
Other Comments by jshuey
32. Comment #235846 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 7:48 pm
The request to extend "HUMAN" rights to non species relatives is utter nonsense and is illogical that any discussion about this here lets me question the sanity of its proponents.With rights come responsibilities, as has been pointed out.
Children are the responsibility of their parents, and are protected from certain legal action by their age.
I have not seen any ten year old go to prison for a crime in a civilized country (although the US murders adolescents apparently quite regularly, but I would not consider a country with the death penalkty civilized) nor have I seen anybody under eighteen vote. I also have not seen an adolescent run for office lately.
So, the expression of the human right to participate in the political life is limited and an age discrimination exists.
What then does extending "HUMAN" rights mean to animals? A gorilla for president? (I guess he could do no more harm then GWB) Extend the voting rights to all zooanimals? I guess it would be too cumbersome to canvass the ones in the djungels and african savannah, or to ask my neighbour the prairiedog for his vote of the next canadian prime minister. But wait - I just got an answer my five squirrels occupying the old goatbarn the "harper" is their choice. At least it sounded that way.
I am sorry, this is just nuts - and not the ones for bushy tailed ones.
Protecting animals, ensuring treatment that is species approbriate for those we have bred for our purposes, preventing cruelty etc. No problem.
But unless we give full human rights with all political implications to a newborn toddler I see no logic behind the extension of "HUMAN" rights - they bear the name for a reason, H U M A N, you get it? to animals.
Other Comments by kraut
33. Comment #235848 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm
32, Are you THAT hung up on semantics? Post 19 clarified which human rights were under consideration. Children are human but you full well understand that they don't have all the rights adults do, yet you think in this case "human" automatically means adult human of normal intelligence?Other Comments by kkelly
34. Comment #235852 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 8:51 pm
some with poundage and power exceeding that of an adult man
some?
Any way, I thought this was an old battle? Apes shouldn't be alloted "human" rights (eeek don't wag your finger at me kelly) but rights of their own.
What was that article that was posted here a while back about this same thing.....
hmm
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
35. Comment #235853 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 8:53 pm
It is not semantics, it is logic.Human rights - and their limitations in the case of the underaged, prisoners etc., are for humans, and only for those.
Extending human rights to non humans will have to make them human first.
You can extend protection towards an ape, ethical treatment, you cannot make him human.
And you can only treat them ethical - which a regular ape or non ape predator cannot do - because you are human.
What are an apes ethics or morals?
The idea of extending human rights - not humane or species approbriate and ethical(from our pesrpective) - to animals is a romantic idea, based on the idea that animals are us. They are related, but they ain't us.
This is the height of irrationality and unreason, and as the whole romantic movement has shown, leads to the same spiritual nonsense in the end.
I feel one with my brother ape...why not believe in ghosts and aliens?
Oh yeah, since you guys are so keen - I want protection of tarantulas (I just love em, sorry). Death penalty to anybody who stomps on a spider, to anybody who kills a larder beetle, and do not dare squash that 'skeeter.
Ah yes, since we are ther, my brothers in evolution
Other Comments by kraut
36. Comment #235859 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:10 pm
35, Extending certain human rights (rather I should say, rights traditionally granted to humans) is not the same as equating them with humans. You're clearly insane.Other Comments by kkelly
37. Comment #235871 by shaunfletcher on August 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm
It is perhaps relevant to ask what kind of rights and responsibilities do we extend to humans with severe mental injury or disability. I would think that that would present the nearest to a useful parallel from a lawmaking point of view.
The fact is, to our modern mores there isnt even a question over protective rights regarding disabled people, and no sensible reason to question whether apes should have protective rights, but there is an area of discussion with regard to freedom and decision making for such people with limited cognitive capacities, and such there would also be for apes. There is also a problem for society with regard to responsibility, specifically criminal responsibility in both mental disability cases and also in cases involving children.
We are well able to handle this complexity in human cases, why should we not be able to in cases of other ape species?
Other Comments by shaunfletcher
38. Comment #235876 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 9:36 pm
"You're clearly insane."I guess logic is not one of your strong suits.
How can I extend "HUMAN" rights to a non human species? That is some reasoning that I cannot bend my mind around.
But thanks for you unwarranted idiotic and arsekissing attack ( arsekissing the animal right loons).
Has it occured to you, that as the christian midstream apologists are helpmates to the extrem religious nuts, the "liberal" midstream animal rights activists proclaiming the nonsense of "human rights" for animals are nothing but helpmates to the animal right terrorists?
This "animal rights" romanticism is for me on the same level as the spiritual nonsense spouted by the new agers of all kinds, dowsers, homeopaths, pyramid power, etc.
And I thought this was a sceptical website. I was mistaken, having to take in such utter bullshit.
Other Comments by kraut
39. Comment #235882 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 9:43 pm
38, You must be trying really hard to not understand. Forget about the word "human". This is about protecting animals whose intellectual capacities rival human toddlers from torture, miserable confinement, and arbitrary death in countries that would adopt this measure. Nothing else.Other Comments by kkelly
40. Comment #235887 by chewedbarber on August 23, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Relax sauer, nobody is supporting the fringe elements of PETA, at least not publicly. Other Comments by chewedbarber
41. Comment #235892 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 10:04 pm
"You must be trying really hard to not understand"No, you are hard to understand. What you and others, similarly espousing "human" rights for animals, do not realize is that you are devalueing the concept of human rights, because your approach has to either:
Extend human right unequivocally to all animals - a rather unreasonable approach
Or
create fractional human rights depending on what?
Thinking capacity,body shape, most commen recent ancestor?
Measure the intelligence of an animal to grant the "rights"?
What about humans that fail this test? Kill'em, put them in cages?
I have absolutely no problems with creating laws and a mechnism to enforce them to protect primates, or to protect any other wild species, but they are laws for the protection of animals, not extension of "human rights" to any non human species.
Other Comments by kraut
42. Comment #235897 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I have absolutely no problems with creating laws and a mechnism to enforce them to protect primates
Great, now we just have to make sure the word "human" never appears in the wording of the law and we'll both be on our happy little way.
Other Comments by kkelly
43. Comment #235948 by Apeseed on August 24, 2008 at 12:50 am
Perhaps we need to start taking account of the new perspective on life that evolutionary theory gives us. Instead of talking about God-given rights we should start framing rights and protections according to a sliding scale of sentience.
After all, human rights are animal rights in that we are a specialised form of ape.
Most laws are predicated upon people being responsible. If it can be shown that different people are less responsible for their actions due to neurological reasons then they shouldn't be judged in the same way as those judged capable of mature discrimination. The same would be true of non-human animals.
Then perhaps we wouldn't have so-called civilised societies giving the death penalty to the mentally retarded.
Why should laws be static.
My biggest problem with religions is the fact that their ethics are fixed because written in holy books. They have no conception of the ability for societies to change and therefore needing laws to change with them.
Other Comments by Apeseed
44. Comment #235966 by hawt4dawk on August 24, 2008 at 1:17 am
kraut - You post with anger, hate, bias and lack of knowledge about the issues. One minute you're talking:Has it occured to you, ... the "liberal" midstream animal rights activists proclaiming the nonsense of "human rights" for animals are nothing but helpmates to the animal right terrorists?
This "animal rights" romanticism is for me on the same level as the spiritual nonsense spouted by the new agers of all kinds, dowsers, homeopaths, pyramid power, etc.
And I thought this was a sceptical website. I was mistaken, having to take in such utter bullshit.
Then you say:
I have absolutely no problems with creating laws and a mechnism to enforce them to protect primates
Well, which is it and why?
If you can't understand that animals are capable of suffering and deserve protection for the same reasons we deserve protection, it is probably because you know so little about the evolution of the brain that you don't know we share the amygdala -- the seat of emotions -- with most, if not all, other mammals (not just primates)?? Did you miss the 90s, the decade of brain research, out of which much thought was given to the ethics of the way people treat animals based on scientific evidence? There seems to be a whole reasoned discourse you are missing.You're the one who's back in a previous century believing in the outdated notions that animals are merely biological clockwork with no feelings.
I have no respect for your nasty, ugly words and attitude, your ridiculous accusations and ill-presented, nearly incoherent "arguments." You just come on here occasionally to attack people. I just wanted to make that clear before I go about my business of ignoring you for the rest of all time.
Other Comments by hawt4dawk
45. Comment #235977 by Apeseed on August 24, 2008 at 1:29 am
I can't see the logic that someone who holds a moderate stance along the spectrum of opinions somehow supports another of more extreme opinion. Isn't this just a version of the Slippery Slope fallacy? Other Comments by Apeseed
46. Comment #235998 by JackHandsome on August 24, 2008 at 2:37 am
A penny for your thoughts, Binti Jua.Other Comments by JackHandsome
47. Comment #236002 by SilentMike on August 24, 2008 at 2:47 am
I'm sorry but I don't think my questions have been addressed. I understand many people here don't think that treating our fellow apes as moral creatures does not entail moral responsibility, but I haven't seen any explanations as to why that is so.I really think that you should think about what your suggestions may entail. Of course animal voting isn't going to happen (one should hope. I can see the PETA people demanding to vote "for them"). But you should still think about what the status you want to give will be, exactly. It won't be of adult citizens clearly. A chimpanzee isn't smart enough. But maybe a small child? Well, small children need to be taken care of. Maybe all chimpanzees should be in custody then. I mean nature is very dangerous for them, and not just because of human poachers. There's nothing holy about nature, and if their happiness is really important then surely they can be happier in captivity where famine is never near and injuries and chronic pains can be dealt with swiftly.
If you can show me the animal correlate of homicide I'd be awfully impressed. It just doesn't happen.
That's an incredibly naive statement. Chimpanzees have been known to kill young. But forget about that. They attack each other to steal food. That perfectly OK from a biological standpoint, but if you see them as moral creatures you have to see this as an immoral act. If one child beats up another and takes his lunch we call the aggressor a bully, and the adult (parent, teacher etc.) is expected to intervene.
Many apes already live "in jail" and they haven't done anything.
That, again, is beside the point. So what? That may be a problem for us if apes have those rights, and it isn't if they don't. It's really irrelevant of the problem I presented.
The main thing right now is that these creatures are endangered in the wild and getting governmental support to create and enforce protective laws is critical to their species survival -- typical animal rights laws are quite inadequate or they wouldn't still be endangered.
I whole heartily agree. I think we should try and prevent the extinction of apes in the wild. But I don't think that's even remotely an animal rights issue (except that obsession with animal rights can divert our attention and efforts). here want to preserve the species, much like we want to preserve insect species. Species don't feel pain, they don't have thoughts, and they clearly don't have animal rights (though it's possible that their members do). A chimpanzee that lived a hundred years ago won't be affected by the end of it's species (yes yes, and neither will long dead humans. Irrelevant). This is an entirely different matter and giving chimpanzees human-like rights won't help you keep them in the wild. In fact, unless you change what "human rights" mean it may cause you to end their existence in the wild all together.
I want to be clear about this. Of course I don't think that you think apes should all be gathered and pampered in big cosy cages so they'll have fun lives instead of natural lives. I'm also sure you don't want them to vote or pay taxes. I think you have this picture in your head of how things should ideally be. What I'm trying to say is that you haven't seemed to have checked the connection between the way you think things should be and the basic values that your trying to promote here. I really think these proposed values raise some interesting questions and conclusions about the place of apes in society and this world in general. You seem to brush these away because "well, it's ridiculous", and maybe you're right. Maybe these conclusions are ridiculous. But might that not also mean that the whole project of giving apes human rights must come into question? Should we maybe think about it more? Shouldn't we consider what human rights are, where they come from, and what do we mean by giving some of them to apes? I'm truly disturbed by this willingness to dispense "human rights" around like candy, for various reasons and without giving it much thought.
Other Comments by SilentMike
48. Comment #236009 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 2:59 am
Welcome back, TWP. Hope it was a good road trip. :) See anything cool?
Not really back. See Dawkins is Right thread.
Thanks though!
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
49. Comment #236019 by DrCogSci on August 24, 2008 at 3:27 am
Among the rights that would be dispensed is the right to life, this seems to be very important in moderating human/ape interaction, but in ape/ape interaction this is1) all but impossible to enforce
2) not enforced by the population itself: If our standards are applied to them, could they be said to be respecting the right to life of other apes *already*?
Monitoring every ape population on earth is impossible, and the chimp-crime squad is going to be hell of an overworked.
Secondly, if the right to liberty is enforced, we have to assume a kind of responsibility in chimps that the literature just doesn't support (yet?). What would constitute the deprivation of liberty, and how could we possibly justify animal testing in light of
"detention should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who would clearly be a danger to others if at liberty"
is a bit lost on me.
I'm all for supporting an agenda that gives greater protection to animals, and stricter ethical oversight to our interactions with them. But defining them into personhood is ridiculous.
Apes cannot have a right to life enforced by humans, nor can the conception of "liberty" as it appears here, allow for what interactions we do have with apes (zoos, conservancies, labs). Thus, the project of bestowing these upon them would at best be meaningless, at worst, harmful.
What good will arise out of granting them "human rights" as opposed to improving our existing protection of animals policies?
Other Comments by DrCogSci
50. Comment #236025 by SilentMike on August 24, 2008 at 3:42 am
50. Comment #236019 by DrCogSciI have to say I agree with you.
Other Comments by SilentMike
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #235657 by debacles on August 23, 2008 at 11:11 am
I couldn't agree more. It's a sad story we'll never truly know.
Other Comments by debacles