1488Views117Replies

Author Options:

Apes are People, Too Answered

Spain's parliament has voted to give the rights to life and freedom to apes. Keeping apes for use in circuses, television commercials or for filming will be forbidden. Zoos are still OK, but many will have to improve their conditions in the future to keep apes.

Right on.

Link

Discussions

Great. Now we will have apes serving us at McDonalds.

i think all u saying they should not have freedom and a circus i s going to giv them somthing to do then put yourselvez into the apes shoes changed ur mind? some people say they r primates and we evolved from them so if u belive that then HA!(sorry HA)

Actually, they are primates, as are humans. I believe technically humans evolved in parallel to apes from a common ancestor, but that's an IIRC so any biologists feel free to correct me.

What's your evidence for humans not being evolutionarily linked to the other apes?

My evidence is the Bible!! If we were evolved from apes, why are there still apes that havento turned into humans yet?

Correct, studying zoology and evolutionary biology, I shall inform you that humans and other apes (yes, humans really are apes too) all branched off from each other from a common ancestor. Chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related to humans than either of them are to gorillas.

which then means apes went one way, humans a different branch, ergo apes will probably never become human.

All apes branched out from each other from a common common ancestor, although chimpanzees, bonobos and humans all share a more recent ancestor than they do with gorillas and orangutans. What I am saying is that human apes did not branch out one way and non-human apes branched out in a different way. This means instead of a two way street as you are implying, it's more like a 4 way intersection, with the meeting place in the middle being where the ancestor of all apes started. As for non-human apes becoming "human", this is an impossibility as chimpanzees in particular have already evolved more than humans since the two branched off a few million years ago. Modern humans in the exact species of homo sapiens have only existed for some thousands of years. A species can NEVER evolve into being another species which already currently exists. For example, a gibbon (a lesser ape) cannot ever evolve into a chimpanzee (a great ape). The same thing goes with any species. An orangutan cannot evolve into a bonobo just as a gorilla cannot evolve into a human. All humans are apes native to African but not all apes are humans and orangutans are the least close from bonobos, chimps, and humans and they evolved into their present day for in Asia instead of Africa, where most great apes evolved, including humans as I mentioned earlier. Chimpanzees have a superior short-term memory compared to humans as well.

native to Africa* present day form*

i really dont know what ur talking about and wen i that thing before i had to let out a little anger on some1 and i didnt really know what I was talking about

You're correct, against common belief, the currently accepted theory is that we have a common ancestor.

I find this somewhat disturbing. Do apes really need freedom? There are some people over there who don't even receive all their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Shouldn't we be worrying about them?

Exactly. Animals never have been, are not, and never will be, humans. Period.

But humans have ALWAYS been animals, will continue to be so, and frankly no scientific evidence has stood up against the theory of evolution. And it's silly to assume that other species won't ever achieve the level of development that humans have.

And it's silly to assume that other species won't ever achieve the level of development that humans have.

How far backwards will you take that argument? Is it silly to assume that germ cells will never evolve into humans? We kill them off without their consent by the trillions...

It is all a matter of perspective...- - -...

We all (including other complex animals) evolved from very small, simple creatures. It's an extremely slow process in our perspective of time, but that's how it happens.

so germs should or should not be treated with equal rights, since one day they become human too?

That would be absurd. Bacteria or any microlife do not have the ability even to feel pain as all mollusks, echinoderms, fish, tetrapods (four limbed animals), and even some insects have. Bacteria are not even a part of the animal kingdom. Unlike apes (a group that still contains humans whether you wish to accept that or not), bacteria and many animals do not have complex social structures where individuals are given status and rank depending on their family and personal achievements. They also do not have distinctive intellectual abilities, short-term and long-term memories, the ability to reason and learn from past mistakes (which even mice have that last one) and particularly, the capability to solve complex problems, pretend and deceive, expect, and assume what other individuals are thinking, which great apes all have. In particular, they have notable linguistic abilities, especially bonobos since they have been studied and found to have their own vocal language that names specific objects. Your argument is weak and irrelevant since an ape species will never evolve into another ape species. Gorillas will never become chimpanzees and bonobos will never become humans. Equally, finches will never become kiwis and robins will never become cardinals. Evolution does not work that way. Besides, we are discussing great apes in the current state they are in, not the bacteria that exist today in order to become tomorrow's new complex species.

Actually, without the nervous system to transmit pain, or a brain capable of translating such signals, the creature (be they mollusk, crustacia, or insect) so if it is only the inablility to feel pain that is the definition, and combined with the argument that such may some day evolve into a human form we have eliminated 90 % or so of the animal kingdom.

Besides, we are discussing great apes in the current state they are in, not the bacteria that exist today in order to become tomorrow's new complex species.

Sure, it is easy to dismiss the argument because of the distance I have taken it, but if you back up just one step, how far back do you go before you decide that it is no longer a valid argument?

Again, I am not making an argument for or against anything, I am trying to get you to define parameters.....trying to get you all to say....the buck stops here.....or that it can never stop, for any animal.....either way, I am trying to get to a definitive stopping endpoint.

Besides, you brought up the simple creatures we evolved from.

Actually, without the nervous system to transmit pain, or a brain capable of translating such signals, the creature (be they mollusk, crustacia, or insect) so if it is only the inablility to feel pain...

Is this sentence incomplete? The creature what? It looks that way after your parenthesis, just asking since I'm uncertain on the significance of the first segment of that sentence.

Although it would be nice to protect every animal that feels pain from human subjugation and disrespect to their life, you and I know this is completely unrealistic, especially at this point in time where many people eat medium and large sized animals such as pigs (which are more intelligent and socially complex than dogs) and cows.

I am stating that we all evolved from microlife because that is simply fact. Our microlife forms were never protected, therefore I ask why should the current ones be? There is a huge percentage in genetic difference between bacteria and bonobos and humans. There is a 1,6% (if not slightly smaller) difference between bonobos and humans, leaving us with a genetic makeup being at least 98,4% identical. I conclude that if we are trying to give non-human animals basic rights (the same rights mentally impaired humans have), then there is going to be a place where we draw the line. Starting with the other great apes seems like the obvious and best choice. This doesn't even include the lesser apes like gibbons.

As cold it may sound and as much as I wish it could be different, the characteristics required to qualify for personhood were the above ones I mentioned, that all great apes (any various other animals may) have. So as I mentioned earlier, we have to start somewhere.

Actually, without the nervous system to transmit pain, or a brain capable of translating such signals, the creature (be they mollusk, crustacia, or insect) so if it is only the inability to feel pain...

Is this sentence incomplete? The creature what? It looks that way after your parenthesis, just asking since I'm uncertain on the significance of the first segment of that sentence.

Sorry, I was tired and in a bit of a hurry that evening....after the parenthetical phrase, it should have read something like: they would not feel pain. So, if it is only the inability to feel pain...(that is the criteria, then we have a bit of a problem.)

There is a huge percentage in genetic difference between bacteria and bonobos and humans.

You're right....many single celled creatures have more genes in their chromosomes then we do...

As cold it may sound and as much as I wish it could be different, the characteristics required to qualify for personhood were the above ones I mentioned, that all great apes (any various other animals may) have. So as I mentioned earlier, we have to start somewhere.

Thank you. I was finally able to get a definition of where you considered we should be drawing the line in the sand. This was all I wanted to know. I really wasn't trying to be difficult not really

There is actually a book called Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights, where the author actually reviews both studies and experiments (mostly with the actual scientists who conduct(ed) them) of various species of animals. This includes a gorilla, orangutan, dolphins, elephants, bees, a dog, some briefly over Kanzi (a bonobo - I think he has another book which focuses more on them), Alex (an African grey parrot), and a few others I believe. In each conclusion of every animal at the end of their chapter, he assignes a rank of how well the animal demonstrates the above criteria I mentioned of mental cognition and points out that Kanzi with something between 98-99% out of 100% is a little higher than what some humans are on this scale, with 100% being an animal who shows 100% of all criteria, which are very strict criteria, so in humans that number may dip down to or below 70% for some individuals and even lower for others who are severely mentally retarded as in the case of a man (cannot remember his name though) with an IQ somewhere between 15-20, also mentioned in the book I believe. The author then places the animal in categories he has made. One of them being for animals who show a definite criteria for personhood, those who do not, and those who are questionable. He does a good job with this, in my opinion and handles well the point that those who qualify for personhood should do so because of their mental/emotional abilities and not just because they are or are not a particular species.

Just because EVERYONE hasn't gotten everything they deserve doesn't mean that it is acceptable for a certain percentage to just be ignored. Just because there is still human slavery doesn't mean that other primates are okay to enslave.

Oh, I get it now. I guess I never looked at that as "slavery". I suppose it depends under what conditions these apes are being used in circuses, movies, etc. I mean, they may not get "paid" in currency; but as long as they get good "room & board", food, medical care, etc, I wouldn't consider it slavery. I s'pose it depends on the environmental factors of each situation.

Does that mean the Africans that were forcefully brought to the Americas and sold to people who gave them food, a bed and a comfortable place to rest in weren't really slaves?

No, it doesn't. Neither the humans nor non-humans were given a choice.

Exactly, and in both cases it's wrong; being non-human doesn't make it any more right. I wish there were more humans in the world that could see that...

Yes, non-human apes really need freedom to LIVE and freedom from being TORTURED and freedom from being wrongfully IMPRISONED when there are only some thousands of them such as chimpanzees left on the planet. As for all the people who have had their basic rights trampled on (the right to life, freedom from torture and protection of being wrongfully imprisoned which does not include your broad category of liberty/freedom in general and certainly not the "pursuit of happiness" you're talking about), there is nothing we can do to help all of them given the fact that there are about seven BILLION humans on this planet, which seems like a very healthy, natural number, no? What I find "somewhat" disturbing is not only the sour, embarrassing reaction from members of my own supposedly more developed and superior species, but the ecological fact that the lives of so many humans should not be sustained on this planet. It's all in ecology, producers are the largest in number and the species higher up in the food chains are always smaller in number. Humans are at the top of most food chains so obviously something is very wrong here.

If an ape agrees to be on the tele, are they allowed to be on the tele?

I don't think it forbids their appearance, just keeping them for that sole purpose, ya know? I think it's a great step against animal cruelty. There are way too many instances of animal cruelty in the entertainment biz to not justify this.

Ahh, I understand. Although, it is hard to train an animal to be on the TV without keeping them for that sole purpose. But it is a great step towards the equal treatment of animals.

I refuse to treat field mice as family come on in, have a cup of joe j/k

But they're so cute! Found one in a bucket once. I think we let it go, but we might've fed it to my sis's snake. Can't remember. I think we let it go.

Mice and rats can carry a form of lice that contains the Black Plague (reference: plague of mice)....inside mice and rats are normally free of such, but then they ARE being raised in cages, and I thought you all were against that?

In my opinion, it is not abuse if the cages are large enough and they are properly fed, you know? But we just let them go when they get trapped in our buckets and such. We have lots of lizards, too. My dad takes pictures of them sometimes.

So roomy zoos and circuses that treat them alright are ok?

It isn't animal cruelty in my book. Some animals are poached in the wild, which means that they will survive longer if kept in captivity. Of course, captivity is pointless if the animals are abused.

From Wikipedia- John Locke defined a person as "a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it" (Essay on Humane Understanding, Book 2, Chapter 27, Section 9). John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future). In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as personhood theory. This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following: 1. Consciousness, 2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively, 3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it), 4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity. Why should we exclude an animal that has the ability to think, learn, and even communicate meaningfully with us from having it's own rights? Just Saying, it's something to think about.

It'll be human in 3million years ;o)