Apes aren't human!!!

icarus1

The issue is not whether animals in general should have the same rights as humanoids as whether they should have rights in their own right. Following the logic being proposed, the scenario would arise wherein all animals are granted or denied their 'rights' on the basis of their similarity, or otherwise, to humans. Argueing that they should have the same rights as humans (to vote for example?) is irrelevant.

lostexpectation

Do you think apes should have equal and human rights.. in the eyes of the law.

Don't be going into all the nitty gritty it'll drive round the bend or up a tree or some'int.

Vegeta

Who's to say they even want our rights, if they have our rights do they also have to obey our laws. It s a very big can of worms

Demetrius

psi wrote:

Whu? Wha?

Are you referring to our >1% difference as being something to do with a soul?

Even if you're not then you're missing the point.

Of the >98% homology between human and chimp DNA. The VAST MAJORITY is conserved throughout all mammalian species, some even throughout the majority of life forms.

So if you wish to logically compare the differences between two creatures, the way to do it isn't to say - "look at how much is the same" the way to do it is to ask "well what is it exactly that is different".

The differences between a creatures DNA tell us alot more than the similarities.

Okay. What sets us apart? What sets me-a limited to average human-apart from an average chimp?

Complex verbal lanuage thats inwired into our brain, allowing the most of us the ability to speak when properly stimulated as children.

The ability to be a "Jack of all trades," able to use our superior brain to live in places that other animals, like lower primates, could not thrive in.

Our ability to think at much higher levels. Would an average chimp be able to converse or be able to converse?

(Yes Demetrius is a chimp.:rolleyes: Just in case any smart guy comes in with that)

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

Do you think apes should have equal and human rights.. in the eyes of the law.

Don't be going into all the nitty gritty it'll drive round the bend or up a tree or some'int.

Here is an easier question -

If higher primates, the rest of the Great Apes (we are after all Great Apes), share the basic mental characteristics that make human life "special" (which to me would be consciousness and the ability to be self-aware) why would they not be granted equal or at least limited rights the same as a human being.

If they do share the same "special" characteristics and we don't grant them the same rights then it makes such rights pointless.

For how can they be "rights" if they only apply to one set of creatures with such characteristics and not to another.

So the question everyone should be asking themselves is what is the "special" characteristics that make the human mind worthy of such rights.

It seems to me that most people objecting to this law don't know, and if you don't even know what it is that makes our minds special how can you claim that the other Great Apes don't possess it.

p.pete

In Paulo Freire's book Pedagogy of the Oppressed he argues that the ignorance and lethargy of the poor are the direct result of the whole economic, social and political domination. By being kept in a situation in which it is practically impossible to achieve a critical awareness and response the disadvantaged are kept "submerged".

Through the right kind of education, the book suggests no matter how impoverished or illiterate, we can all develop a new awareness of self, and the right to be heard.

Following on from this I reckon we should educate the animals and then they can tell us what kind of rights they'd like for themselves...

Tar.Aldarion

psi wrote:

Yes, but if you want to render it down to the level you're arguing (which is that we are just smarter animals), then our "smartness" is just an evolutionary weapon that we have developed to survive. It is no different to a Cheetah's speed or a Shark's teeth. We are animals with an evolutionary advantage that puts up high up the food chain. Our smartness is designed to help us breed and survive as a species, therefore we are perfectly justified, as animals, in using it to kill off creatures that act as a resource.

Unless you're then going to argue that "our intelligence is special", which to be honest, is just one step away from the arguing you are trying to counter in the first place.

No it is not special, we are different. We are animals in the sense that we are in fact biologically, animals. We are different than other animals, all animals are different to every other animal.
You can say our intelligence is special, if you say a sharks teeth make them special, if a bears strength makes them special. Nothing makes anything special, just different. Unless somebody believes in a 'soul' and applies it to some animals and not others.

Actually, this kind of thing is in the animal kingdom too. Some species have tight knit clans, some don't. Some cannibalise, some don't. Some look after tehir own, some don't. Creatures treating other creatures of the species well is just a survival technique. Creatures that will treat their own with compassion and loyalty will still tear anything that doesn't belong around it to shreds.

Unless you argue that we're special animals, and above normal animals.... oh no, wait, thats what you're arguing against.

No, as I said, we are different. Why would all animals have to follow the same rules just because theu are classed as animals?
'Animal' does not make every animals the same.

Why shouldn't we hurt animals?

Where is this written?

It is not, just as it is not 'written' that we should.
Well for me, that is down to the person. It is written inside me. If you go out and hurt an animal, torture it, do you not 'know' that it is wrong because of how it makes you feel?

Oh hold on, this makes us "special animals" again. Isn't that what you said we aren't?

as I said no, we ar different. Special implies better. All animals would be 'special' in that case.

All animals know the difference between a dead, wounded and healthy animal.
All predators know how to help the process along. They do it knowingly.

They know that their food is moving or not moving. Can you say they knowing kill thinking they are causing something pain? They learned that they had urges and because of their EP having more contol on them, if that is the case, they went with that to survive. Once all humans did thusly, yet as we evolved we have done it less and less.

But hold on. You are classing our evolutionary advantage as something other than just an evolutionary skill.

No, it is a different skill, with different implications, as all skills are. All skills were just provided by mother nature.
at the top of the food chain on our little planet you may see us as just having the best means to kill. I consider us to be the caretakers of this planet because with the skill of intelligence comes the burden of responibility, as all skills similarily have their ups and downs.

So again, you are classifying us outside "normal animals".

No, as I said, I am clearly not.

Sorry, you're flowering it up, but you're muddling your own argument.

No, I think I am not.
I think you are seeing different as special or better.

So, you're saying that we should not use the skills we developed in order to survive for the purpose of survival.

Aren't we just animals though? :rolleyes:

How do you figure that, we do not need to kill to survive. If you need to use something for the purpose of survival do. We use our brains, we make technology, we do not need to use them to d better ways of killing.

Please show us exactlt why you think humans as an animal should have a natural urge to kill other humans.

Simians are a social species so in terms of natural urges, so too should we be.

Do you even know anything you're talking about here or is this all just PETA-like propaganda?

What makes you think they do not have this natural urge?
Throughout history, it has been shown that humans that can not control themselves act out, killing other people.
No PETA propaganda, detestable orgaisation.

What? Evolutionary psychology?

What do you mean?
Do you know what it is?

So you're saying the biology that drives instinct just stopped working? Do you know what instinct is or the mechanism of its action?

No, I am saying that there are now flaws with EP as we are using reason, which is intertwined with instinct to play a bigger role in our lives.
If you have studied this you should know that yes, it is becoming less prevalent, 'stopping to work'. Reason and culture are playing a role.
"Natural", even when speaking of biological organisms, is not limited to "genetic" and my argument with EP has to do precisely with that implied limitation. Like social constructionism, of course (which we might as well abbreviate as SC), EP comes in a range of varieties, from "weak" to "strong", and, just as with SC, the weak versions are largely unexceptionable: there's no doubt that mental and cultural phenomena are products of biological -- meaning genetic -- evolution, and as such exhibit features that derive directly from such evolution. But, also as with SC, there's a "strong" version of the school as well, which implies that the most adaptive and significant features of mind and culture are genetically derived, and that what is not so derived is merely conventional, or more or less arbitrary and random. And this is to make a profound mistake -- it misses or ignores the fact that culture is itself a natural phenomenon that has broad influence on human psychology and society, and that responds to the same kinds of environmental selection pressures that biological evolution does, only more rapidly. A little more specifically, the school of EP exhibits three main reasons that it is lessening, as I see it:

* It fails to understand culture itself as a wholly natural phenomenon, as physical in its basis in neural structure as genetics is in its basis in DNA.
* It therefore fails to appreciate that culture itself is susceptible to a general Darwinian process of natural selection (though different, obviously, in its mechanisms) -- and that, in adapting to environmental challenges and opportunities far more rapidly than biology, culture can not only come into conflict with biology but can be a source of biological selection pressure itself.
* And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede psychological and social ground to culture, precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.

My god, where do you get this stuff?

hat stuff is from pyschology.
Where else would you think?

I imagine you get your stuff from some educational background yourself.

But if we're animals, why shouldn't we?

Some animals are herbivorous, some are not.
If we are animals, why should we?

Please back that up with some sort of factual reference if you can.

Well teh part about my diet does not need to be backed up, it's the world health organisations stance on the matter.

As for the more question of what humans are biologically, that is more difficult.
I have never read about it on the net, just in medical books, other books relating to the topic etc.
So I'll do a quick google.
Hmm, this is the first site I found, I don't know how unbiased it is yet as it has veg in the title. Read it and make your own conclusion.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

It is a debate. i am not saying which side is right. There is so uch data to take into account and ways it can be viewed that I find it very debatable.

Now, a question.
Natural. What is natural really?
Why should animals follow what is natural in general?
If people were omnivorous or herbivorous by nature, why should they follow that. Same goes with other animals. Where is it written?
Especially if and when the don't have to. Animals are all different, can animals be better than the sum of their own parts?
I would hazard yes.


Vegeta - omnivorous or herbivious numbers matter not today. Observastional study is irrelevant at this stage.

Gurgle

Demetrius wrote:

Crude oil? Hmm...I could smoke signal and communicate that way:) No chimp can do that.

How are you going to make the fire?

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Complex verbal lanuage thats inwired into our brain, allowing the most of us the ability to speak when properly stimulated as children.

Firstly chimps communicate, they even pass on knowledge.

Secondly verbal language is not a requirement in humans to be given human rights. Disabled people with out the ability to speak, or form lanuage are still considered worthy of civil rights and protection under the law from harm and explotation.

Demetrius wrote:

The ability to be a "Jack of all trades," able to use our superior brain to live in places that other animals, like lower primates, could not thrive in.

Thats ridiculous, there are thousands of animals that can live places the average human would die within minutes in.

Also the other Great Apes can adapt to their surroundings. They can even alter their surrounds throught he use of tools. Biologically it isn't a great step from an Ape building a nest with a stone axe and us building a mud hut with a stone axe.

Demetrius wrote:

Our ability to think at much higher levels. Would an average chimp be able to converse or be able to converse?

Yes, they do within their own communities.

Demetrius

Gurgle wrote:

How are you going to make the fire?

Remember, Ive some metal. Metal can spark. Id work something out

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly chimps communicate, they even pass on knowledge.

Secondly verbal language is not a requirement in humans to be given human rights. Disabled people with out the ability to speak, or form lanuage are still considered worthy of civil rights and protection under the law from harm and explotation.


Thats ridiculous, there are thousands of animals that can live places the average human would die within minutes in.

Also the other Great Apes can adapt to their surroundings. They can even alter their surrounds throught he use of tools. Biologically it isn't a great step from an Ape building a nest with a stone axe and us building a mud hut with a stone axe.


Yes, they do within their own communities.

Within their own communities.

But we are capable of empathy and of even communicating with other animals in their fashion.

What else are humans capable of? Sympathy.

Personification. Sticking human attributes to non-living things.

Vivid imaginations.

TheBigLebowski

Is anybody suggesting that animals should have no rights whatsoever? Should they be used/killed/raped by us without any protection from the law whatsoever? How far should these laws then extend? Who is to say? I think humans have responsibilities that no other animal has had before us. We can shape the world around us in a way no other creature can. Our actions can wipe out species, change weather patterns, and potentially wipeout life on earth. Humans should recognise the power they possess and afford animals the rights I think they deserve as our (distant) relatives because basically they depend on us for their future.

Demetrius

TheBigLebowski wrote:

Is anybody suggesting that animals should have no rights whatsoever? Should they be used/killed/raped by us without any protection from the law whatsoever? How far should these laws then extend? Who is to say? I think humans have responsibilities that no other animal has had before us. We can shape the world around us in a way no other creature can. Our actions can wipe out species, change weather patterns, and potentially wipeout life on earth. Humans should recognise the power they possess and afford animals the rights I think they deserve as our (distant) relatives because basically they depend on us for their future.

Agreed, animals do need rights, but they cant have ours. Other higher primates may indeed be a only a few steps down the road from us, but they still havent caught up. If you look at it like a race, weve been ahead for quiet along time now.

Though I do agree in letting them have the right not to be unjustly killed.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

even communicating with other animals in their fashion.

Er, no were not

Demetrius wrote:

What else are humans capable of? Sympathy.

It has been shown that chimps express sympathy for others along with affection and loneliness.

Demetrius wrote:

Vivid imaginations.

You know the other Great Apes don't have vivid imaginations? The very fact they can solve complex problems with tools shows they do have imaginations. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "vivid", define "vivid"

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

Er, no were not


It has been shown that chimps express sympathy for others along with affection and loneliness.


You know the other Great Apes don't have vivid imaginations? The very fact they can solve complex problems with tools shows they do have imaginations. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "vivid", define "vivid"

The ability to think in a fashion that has no benefit to your survival. For instance right now.

Would a chimp bother himself interacting over something like this? (If he could interact in this fashion?)

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

Here is an easier question -

If higher primates, the rest of the Great Apes (we are after all Great Apes), share the basic mental characteristics that make human life "special" (which to me would be consciousness and the ability to be self-aware) why would they not be granted equal or at least limited rights the same as a human being.

Im not trying to have discussion on why they shouldn't be given human rights Im asking wether imho they should be via the UN etc tomorrow?

icarus1

If this entire argument basis itself upon the premise that we are superior mammals then it is self defeating. We are just as bound by the laws of natural selection and evolution as every other living entity on the planet. We have attained a certain dominance through our success as a species given the set of conditions that exist AT PRESENT. These conditions could change at any time, leaving the opportunity open for another species to acquire the same level of predominance. Our present levels of arrogance and complacency are unrealistic and will likely spell our doom.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

Would a chimp bother himself interacting over something like this? (If he could interact in this fashion?)

Yes actually, imaginative "play" has been observed in a large number of the Great Apes. It also has been observed in dolphins.

Certain communiteis of chimps and apes will make games and activities for themselves, that have no survivial purpose.

The most famous example is the community of chimps that gather up ticks and flees and then place them on partners so they can then go through the process of "cleaning" their partner.

This is fantasy and role play. It is completely unnecessary, the chimp started off clean. They do it for "fun" assumingly because they enjoy doing it. That shows both emotion, intelligence, problem solving and most importantly imagination.

Tar.Aldarion

Demetrius wrote:

The ability to think in a fashion that has no benefit to your survival.

It's highly debatable whether that is even possible.
Nothing said here is really fact, merely opinion.
Oh, and yes icarus, it will.

Demetrius

icarus1 wrote:

If this entire argument basis itself upon the premise that we are superior mammals then it is self defeating. We are just as bound by the laws of natural selection and evolution as every other living entity on the planet. We have attained a certain dominance through our success as a species given the set of conditions that exist AT PRESENT. These conditions could change at any time, leaving the opportunity open for another species to acquire the same level of predominance. Our present levels of arrogance and complacency are unrealistic and will likely spell our doom.

Agreed. But were aware of our evolution.

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

Im not trying to have discussion on why they shouldn't be given human rights Im asking wether imho they should be via the UN etc tomorrow?

Yes I think the great apes should be granted limited civil rights.

It is rather unnecesary to grant them the right to own property, hold organisted meetings, practise religion etc. These are rights that are only necessary in human cultures. It isn't necessary to grant a severely mentally disabled person the right to hold organisted meeting either, since they are and never will be capable of doing that.

But if you recongise that Great Apes posses the same basic characteristics of mind that make humans "special" amoung other animals, then the Great Apes should be given the same basic protections.

These include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to determine ones own existance, the right to happiness and protection from harm and explotation.

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

Yes actually, imaginative "play" has been observed in a large number of the Great Apes. It also has been observed in dolphins.

Certain communiteis of chimps and apes will make games and activities for themselves, that have no survivial purpose.

The most famous example is the community of chimps that gather up ticks and flees and then place them on partners so they can then go through the process of "cleaning" their partner.

This is fantasy and role play. It is completely unnecessary, the chimp started off clean. They do it for "fun" assumingly because they enjoy doing it. That shows both emotion, intelligence, problem solving and most importantly imagination.

But not our level of imagination. (Im like a dog with a bone today for some reason)

icarus1

Our degree of 'awareness' is a refinement of our higher intelligence but pointless if we do not ACT upon what that awareness teaches us. Are we 'aware' for example, that we are polluting the planet beyond redemption? Unless we adapt our self destructive behaviour on the basis of what our, so called, awareness teaches us, my predictions for our survival as a species will become accurate.

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I think the great apes should be granted limited civil rights.

It is rather unnecesary to grant them the right to own property, hold organisted meetings, practise religion etc. These are rights that are only necessary in human cultures. It isn't necessary to grant a severely mentally disabled person the right to hold organisted meeting either, since they are and never will be capable of doing that.

But if you recongise that Great Apes posses the same basic characteristics of mind that make humans "special" amoung other animals, then the Great Apes should be given the same basic protections.

These include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to determine ones own existance, the right to happiness and protection from harm and explotation.

But many of those things that you citie as being not exclusively human occur in other animals as well. Where do you draw the line? Great apes given civil rights? Then old and new world monkies? Then Lemurs? I know thats not accurate the way Im saying it, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and the line is with humans. They are "civil", capable of establishing civilisation, agriculture, societies (huge societies)

And what about ideals? Apes operate in a harem society I think. Humans are more varied with most societies tolerating polygamy and yet we gravitate towards monogamy largely.

Vegeta

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Vegeta - omnivorous or herbivious numbers matter not today. Observastional study is irrelevant at this stage.

Fair enough but human genetics is constructed in a way that lets us eat meat easily.

Oh and killing is written into our brains. Hands up here who has killed an animal.

Look into the psychology of hunting (hunting not killing big difference), its very interesting. The same chemical released when smoking hash is also released when hunting heightening sight, hearing, smell and makes you hungry, short term memory goes out the window and concentration/focus on simple tasks improves. Your body and mind are rewarded for hunting

Of course in the modern day hunitng is not needed as farmers do it for us with a higher success rate than any hunter could ever dream of having. Hunting implies some chance of failure.

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

But not our level of imagination. (Im like a dog with a bone today for some reason)

Does a chimp who can invent a game to play not have a higher level of imagintion than my grand mother (the one with alzimerese)?? The answer is yes.

Demetrius I'm not claiming that chimps are exactly the same as humans. We have more developed brains, higher levels of intelligence and imagination and problem solvings. All that is true.

But we have already established that our high level of all these abilities is not the basis that we are granted civil rights. My grand mother has lost nearly all of these higher abilities. Yet her civil rights will stay with her until she is considered brain dead.

A person who is very mentally disabled, who cannot and never will be able problem solve, develop games, develop language etc is still given the basic civil rights as all humans. They will never develop abilities that an adult chimpazine would consider second nature. Yet this person is granted the civil rights as all humans, yet a chimp is considered not worthy of such rights

Tar.Aldarion

Vegeta wrote:

Fair enough but human genetics is constructed in a way that lets us eat meat easily.

Anything can eat meat easily really...
We can also digest cardboard rather easily, I think, doesn't mean I'm gonna go eat some.

Oh and killing is written into our brains. Hands up here who has killed an animal.

Me.

We are naturally agressive. I for one love violence and agression. It makes me feel good. Turned to martial arts instead of killing though.

Look into the psychology of hunting (hunting not killing big difference), its very interesting. The same chemical released when smoking hash is also released when hunting heightening sight, hearing, smell and makes you hungry, short term memory goes out the window and concentration/focus on simple tasks improves. Your body and mind are rewarded for hunting

Huh...

Anyway, hunt humans with paintball guns then.

Of course in the modern day hunitng is not needed as farmers do it for us with a higher success rate than any hunter could ever dream of having. Hunting implies some chance of failure.

Tar.Aldarion doesn't hunt. He kills. :P

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

But many of those things that you citie as being not exclusively human occur in other animals as well. Where do you draw the line?

I've told you, I draw the line at animals we know are

1 - Self aware.
2 - Can experience complex emotions.
3 - Are intelligent to the point of problem solving and imagination.
4 - Are conscious of themselves, others and their enviornment.

I don't know if Lemers fit all these, but we know humans do and we know that others in the Great Ape family do.

Demetrius wrote:

And what about ideals? Apes operate in a harem society I think. Humans are more varied with most societies tolerating polygamy and yet we gravitate towards monogamy largely.

What?

What does any of that have to do with human rights?

Demetrius

Wicknight wrote:

What?

What does any of that have to do with human rights?

Im not sure but its another major difference. Abstract thought and the willingness to change ones nature for an ideal. May be exchanging polygamy for monogamy or something less practical. Eg hungerstriking in the North.

I think Ill leave it there. I dont think my opinion is going to change on apes getting civil rights.

Nice talking with you Wicknight.

lostexpectation

Wicknight wrote:

Yes I think the great apes should be granted limited civil rights.

These include the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to determine ones own existance, the right to happiness and protection from harm and explotation.

Is that them all? see now your differentiating? :P :P

I reckon the serverly disabled and children have these rights inately but they are ensured by proxy via a guardian.

hmm, see I reckon this has more to with law and practicalities then cognisants...

perhaps a law on no testing would be always got around, but this law would be a huge hurdle to jump for any biotech company out there

is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species."

The great project wants them denote as 'persons'. I don't really buy this 98% the same thing, is that story about us being 90% plant true??

I really think we broke off on a seperate branch of evolution a very long time ago at the Homo level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae