Chimps: Not Human, But Are They People?

[Ignis]

Source: Wired Science News

As a population of West African chimpanzees dwindles to critically endangered levels, scientists are calling for a definition of personhood that includes our close evolutionary cousins.

<snip>

It’s a controversial position. If being a person requires being human, then chimpanzees, our closest primate relative, are still only 98 percent complete. But if personhood is defined more broadly, chimpanzees may well qualify. They have self-awareness, feelings and high-level cognitive powers. Hardly a month seems to pass without researchers finding evidence of behavior thought to belong solely to humans.

Some even suggest that chimpanzees and other great apes should be granted human rights. So argued advocates for Hiasl, a chimpanzee caught in an Austrian custody battle, and the framers of an ape rights resolution passed by the Spanish parliament. The question of rights is practically thorny — how could a chimp be held responsible for, say, attacking another chimp? — but the fundamental question isn’t practical, but rather scientific and ethical.

"They have been shown to have all kinds of complex communication and cognitive powers that are similar to humans," said Clayton State University primate researcher Jared Taglialatela. "They have feelings, they have ideas, they have goals."

Read more: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/chimpanzees-not/

---

There was also a study published in Current Biology back in February which shows that chimps and humans share the roots of language, using the same parts of the brain (Broca's & Wernicke's Areas) for speech production and processing.

Taken together, this would seem to present a compelling case for animal rights for our near-neighbors.

[AngryAmish]

1. no

[Ignis]

4. Care to summarize that lengthy counter-argument? (nt)

[AngryAmish]

10. Chimps can smoke and ride bicycles

and



It does not make them human.

[Ignis]

11. And what about the complex language functions? (nt)

[AngryAmish]

12. It just seems like they are reading

[timeforpeace]

13. I laughed out loud. Seriously, they are vicious apex predators. They want to kill us.

[datasuspect]

55. BOMB THE CHIMPS!

[backscatter712]

74. And that makes them different from humans how? n/t

[DRoseDARs]

87. Well, for one thing, you can prosecute Humans on criminal charges... n/t

[KamaAina]

33. But not, apparently, eat pretzels or ride Segways

:P

[Ignis]

35. Hey, don't forget: "It's hard work."

Talk about higher brain functions.... ;)

[Arkana]

75. I was wondering how long it was going to take someone to make that joke.

[armyowalgreens]

84. In all your genius you seem to have confused personhood with being a human.

[pollo poco]

20. that's right

Everyone knows apes can't go to heaven when they die. We've known this since the Bronze Age.

And, we shouldn't protect them. It upsets the decreed order. Apes are covered under the "subdue the earth" clause.
Subduing animals is a good bronze age value. And it is also important to guard against the creeping insight that humans might actually be numbered among the animals. This is obviously false, and I am sorry I must remind us all that animals are disqualified from the circle of normal human compassion. Read any of the Wise Bronze Age Guidebooks For Living. This subject is covered in detail. Animals, slaves, women, people from other tribes...are to remain outside the circle of devout compassion. It's all in the Wise Bronze Age Books.

And, I can't figure out the nom de plume "Angry Amish". What's to be angry about? Doesn't he still have the whole world in his hands?

[AngryAmish]

21. here

[armyowalgreens]

83. No one with any true understanding of the concept of personhood would say no.

[Richard D]

2. Smarter than wingnuts.

[DJ13]

3. No

Whats next, they get food stamps?

[Ignis]

9. I'll let George Bernard Shaw tackle that one:

If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth--beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals--would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?

:shrug:

[DJ13]

14. Depends on how nice the cage is

[Fumesucker]

27. It's a cookbook, it's a cookbook..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man

[Ignis]

34. That TZ episode scared the crap out of me as a kid.

...Despite the ridiculously big-headed alien costumes. :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

38. I read the original story before the TZ episode..

It was scary too..

:scared:

[boobooday]

5. I think they should have rights.

But how would that impact all the researchers who use them in experiments that demonstrate their sentience? That could be a dilemma.

[EndersDame]

17. I am against painful testing. I think non invasive social behavior type

tests are ok

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

6. I think Spain has already awarded chimps 'rights'....

... and besides, in the US, if we can ban the slaughter of horses for their meat....

why not protect the chimps?

[Ignis]

8. You are correct. Spain did so back in June '08.

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

-- http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625

[Vidar]

69. Good for Spain.

[Quantess]

97. Monkeys have no rights when it comes to animal testing. This is Malish

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=malish+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=I_jWSva-HY_QsQOF6IzKAg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQqwQwAw#

[Bonobo]

7. Yes, they are. nt

[the other one]

15. Of course they are people. So are my cats. They are just not human.

Human-centric bias and non-human discrimination has no place in an enlightened discussion board.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

77. An enlightened discussion board?

:rofl:

[EndersDame]

16. It may hurt our Ego's but humans are classified as apes ; I say all apes should have some kind

of protection. No hunting no eating no involuntary testing that causes pain. Social experiments that don't hurt I have no problem with

[flvegan]

18. Then maybe we'd stop torturing them for research.

[Mari333]

19. they are a step above humans. more evolved.

humans are the naked apes that arent quite as smart as their cousins.

[proteus_lives]

45. Yeah.

Math, science, poetry, space travel, art that isn't any great shakes. We should all be naked in trees throwing our shit at each other. That would be so much better then commenting on a internet thread.

:eyes:

[AlienGirl]

62. No, they are NOT! Chimps have the same ethical and moral failings as humans

War, infanticide, cannibalism, cruelty to animals, cruelty to lower-ranking members of their groups: chimps commit all of these acts. So do humans. I strongly think both species are "people," along with the rest of the Great Apes and certain other very intelligent animals, but there is no species that is all good or all bad.

Dolphins commit rape and have an ongoing genocide against porpoises in one part of the ocean. They will surround a porpoise, kill the porpoise with sonar blasts and ramming, and then play catch with the corpse. Sometimes they accidentally kill one of their own species' young by mistake (the porpoises are smaller than the dolphins, and a young dolphin of the same size as the porpoise may get targeted).

Teenage male elephants form violent gangs. Sometimes they get drunk and beat up rhinos just for fun.

I could go on and on...

Tucker

[CalvinandHobbes]

81. LOL............nt

[Sinti]

22. I'm pretty sure the more we learn about any animal

the more we'll be forced to recognize that they have a mind in that furry head, just like us. Some day our view of the rest of the animal kingdom will be looked upon as the absurd hubris of a dark age. We ARE animals. Specifically primates, really smart and dangerous ones - hopefully becoming more smart and less dangerous.


Love this part:

Chimpanzees even appear capable of altruism, being willing to help strangers in the absence of anticipated reward. But their empathy, said Gagneux, who proposes treating research chimps in the manner of human subjects incapable of giving informed consent, does not translate to compassion.

He means to be respectful, but makes assumptions about things he cannot know - or they didn't give you the full context and content of what he was saying. Maybe the chimps realize that by helping another they help all (including themselves) - maybe they pay it forward, or maybe they're hoping for some future favor like politicians :P. Lancelot Link anyone?

[jmondine]

23. How can they be people? They don't even look like corporations!

[Melissa G]

26. LOL!

:rofl:

[Ignis]

64. Maybe chimps just need a good contract lawyer.

;)

[YOY]

24. According to my childhood they need personhood. To stand trial for their global terrorism.

?v=0

Baron Von Butcher and the rest of C.H.U.M.P. must be brought to justice. Or else all of Lance and Mata Hairy's work has been for naught.

[Ignis]

39. Only if Burt Reynolds and Chuck Norris stand trial!

They aided and abetted chimp exploitation throughout the '70s. ;)

[YOY]

40. I'll forgive Burt. He probably got that Chimp laid using his smooth 70s moves.

Although I think Cannonball Run II was acually in the early 80s though.

Chuck Norris? You mean Clint Eastwood, right? Is there a Norris flick with a chimp in it? Furthermore does it throw feces at him?

Any primate throwing feces at Chuck Norris (or any other fundie) is a win in my book.

[Ignis]

42. Oops, I do mean Eastwood, not Norris.

And now I've opened myself to a flood of C-Norris jokes. :scared:

[YOY]

58. I refuse to tell Chuck Norris jokes unless they involve him getting served.

n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. how could a chimp be held responsible for, say, attacking another chimp?

WE can't hold them responsible - but Jane Goodall showed that in their own environment they DO have a rudimentary justice system and chimps who bully, attack, and kill other chimps ARE held responsible, and are socially ostracized or even banished from the tribe as punishment.

[Thothmes]

72. accept for the biggest male that can bully

attack and kill other male chimps. He become to troop leader.

[superconnected]

28. Okay. Then my cats are people too.

[baldguy]

73. Dogs too.

[ljm2002]

29. We have a saying in my house...

..."Cats are people too!"

Seems the same ought to go for apes.

:-)

[Chulanowa]

31. Mean, bitchy people who poop in your bed

Man. I'll bet there's nothing in the world worse than a drunk cat, considering what they're like sober

:rofl:

[Chulanowa]

30. Strangely even the concept of protecting apes is stunningly anthropocentric

Only those critters who are most like us are worthy of even the thought of such a thing - And only those who are sufficiently similar to us (sorry, gibbons, you didn't make the cut!). And even then we're the ones picking and choosing what applies and what doesn't.

Not that I oppose the concept. I just think that it's still very egocentric.

And where's the cetacean rights, anyway? Is it just that certain wealthy and non-black countries just find whales too darn delicious, that while we can condemn african "bush meat", we can leave these guys er, floating?

[eShirl]

49. and what about parrots, or crows?

Crows Have Human-Like Intelligence, Author Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060606-crows.html

[Ignis]

51. There's a fascinating TED Talk on that subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

And your point regarding parrots is important, as well. We've progressed quite far from the days when we thought parrots' ability to speak was simple and rote.

:hi:

[AlienGirl]

65. Animal peoples

Here are some broad categories of animals for which there's behavioral evidence of reasoning, complex communication, long memory, acquired culture, mirror self-recognition, and altruistic behavior (such as feeding an aging or ill members of their social group):

Great Apes
Psittacines
Corvids
Cetaceans
Pachyderms

Tucker

[Ignis]

66. Ah yes, thanks for mentioning Pachyderms.

I'd almost forgotten how much we've learned about their complex emotional relationships and societal structures over the past few decades.

:hi:

[eShirl]

32. Ape must not kill ape!

[nolabear]

36. I don't think they're people, but do deserve a special category.

They're clearly cousins, and wonderful ones. They deserve our protection and respect. We are, of course, good at declaring anyone we don't understand disposable.

[Gator_Matt]

37. Why limit to just chimps or great apes?

"They're similar to us" is not a sound ethical measure for determining which animals should be protected. Protect them all if possible.

Going off on a tangent, I'd like to think that some day we'll all be able to be vegetarians. I'm not trying to proselytize since I'm a meat eater myself (my food intolerances make being a vegetarian a lot more impractical), but the concept of butchering another animal is barbaric given our ability to grow sources of protein.

[Taverner]

41. Yes - and they already have more compassion than Republicans

[Gman2]

43. No, You're Stupid. No, you. Shutup.

[Ignis]

44. Important Scientific Discoveries: Not LBN, but are they GD-worthy?

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

46. Of course they are GD-worthy.

After all, even the woo woo star people can post here. :)

[Ignis]

48. "Hey," said The Moon, "you stop pokin' my crack!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LcbuPOJPhI

[Gormy Cuss]

47. If corporations have personhood then chimps should too. n/t

[Jim__]

50. If they're not people, can we still recognize that they have rights?

They are intelligent aware animals. Isn't that enough for us to treat them with some respect?

[Ignis]

61. Well, there's the tricky part.

We don't have a convenient term in English for an "intelligent, language-using, self-aware, non-human animal," so much of our animal rights laws are tied up in property laws.

Some have proposed creating a new class of rights to cover animals who fall into the category above, as it would allow us to shift laws towards inalienable rights for those "semi-persons."

[Cleita]

52. Perhaps we need to recognize the rights of animals, period, not

just the ones closest to us in genetic makeup.

[rd_kent]

53. No. A human is a human, a chimp is a chimp, a fetus is a fetus......

[rd_kent]

54. Is this an effort to get George Bush recognized as a human?

[Ignis]

68. No, we're talking about _complex_ language use here.

Though I wonder if anyone's asked Koko to translate Shrub? :)

[CalvinandHobbes]

82. When does a fetus become a person?

[armyowalgreens]

85. Personhood is independent of species. It is a state of intelligence...

A human who is permanently mentally incapacitated is no longer a person.

[CalvinandHobbes]

86. Riiiggght,

So so the mentally ill are not people?????????// Nice.

What i actually meant to the other person is when do you consider a fetus to be human..?

[armyowalgreens]

88. Nice strawman.

I suffer from mental illness. I would never suggest that the mentally ill aren't persons.

Maybe you should read my post again and retract your ridiculous accusation.

[CalvinandHobbes]

89. No.

Who is going to judge the level of incapacitation? You?

[armyowalgreens]

91. Medical personel trained to come to such conclusions.

Who else do you think would do it? Sheesh.

We already have the ability to gauge incapacitation. Why do you think "people" are declared "brain dead" or in a "persistent vegetative state"? Do you think they make it up as they please?


But seriously. Your original accusation was utter bullshit. I kindly request that you retract it and apologize for being so dishonest.

[Ignis]

100. You're a mensch, AoW.

And I applaud you for trying to keep it civil.

Sadly, few people are willing to question the philosophical underpinnings of "personhood." I understand the religious argument for the exclusivity of humans as persons, but rarely do we see a sound, comprehensive, data-driven argument from a non-religious standpoint.

[backscatter712]

56. Hard to say...

Should George W. Bush have human rights?

[datasuspect]

57. this was foretold in the Planet of the Apes

extend personhood to them, next they'll muster up a lawgiver, and then the statue of liberty will be neck deep on a beach somewhere.

damn, dirty apes.

[Gman2]

59. We could arm wrestle them for it.

[Harry Monroe]

60. Oh yeah, definitely!

Haven't you people learned anything from Charleton Heston and the "Planet of the Apes" movie series??

"Damn you all to hell!! You blew it all up!!"

[jmondine]

63. I used to think that human beings were the most advanced form of life on Earth...

... then I realized, "look who's telling me that".

[hunter]

67. Chimpanzees are people who don't pretend to be something they are not.

We're all animals. A million years from now the most remarkable thing about humans will be the amount of trash we left behind and the damage we did to our environment. The damage will be long healed and some of us will be fossils. That's all, nothing more, the end. If name makers exist they'll call us pan vulgaris or something like that -- "the common ape" or maybe even the filthy ape. If they discover what we called ourselves, our self described intelligence, our claim of some exclusive wisdom, soul, or spirituality, they'll probably laugh at the sick irony of it.

We could start to steer away from that ignoble fate by recognizing and respecting our fellow travelers and including them within our ethical systems. We have a lot in common with other intelligent species; the apes, the dolphins, the whales, the elephants, the dogs, the parrots, the ravens... but for now we are such soulless brutes we can't even respect one another enough among ourselves to stop the killing.

[Ignis]

78. Pan Consumerus

At least future archeologists won't have to worry about environmental damage to our junk.

We've conveniently made it all out of "disposable" plastic! :hi:

[Dangerously Amused]

70. Consider: I can communicate with a sign-language speaking chimp better than I can with my brother

My brother is profoundly retarded and physically disabled. Does the fact that he is "below chimp level" in functioning and expressing himself as a human being make him less deserving of basic human rights?

Conversely, I would argue that the fact that some chimps are able to express themselves better than some human beings makes them deserving of some basic human rights: the rights to not be hunted, physically exploited or tortured (animal testing), for starters.

Here is something else to consider: We allow anyone with a diminished intelligence (children, mentally challenged,etc.) to testify in a court of law as long as they can demonstrate that they:

1. Understand the difference between the truth and a lie,
2. Promise to tell only the truth, and
3. Understand that they can be punished if they tell a lie in court.

There are humans who cannot meet this challenge, and chimps who can. Think about that. There are chimps who can meet the legal challenge that would allow them to testify in court.

Do we still think they should not be entitled to some basic humanitarian rights?

[Ignis]

71. "There are chimps who can ... testify in court."

When we break down any system of inherent rights to study the "uniquely human" characteristics that afford us said rights, it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend the exceptionality of those human-only traits like context-sensitive language use, a sense of time, a complex emotional life, an understanding of morality, or even altruism.

The problem with this discussion topic is that you can count on someone to Quixotically attack the strawman: "Smart animals should NEVER have more rights than dumb humans." This argument, IMHO, quickly devolves into a purely anthropocentric (or "speciesist") one.

Philosophically, we need to work harder to define what makes us so uniquely human--while ensuring that the scientific data actually supports our hypothesis. ;)

[xchrom]

76. i think there is a small set of animals that deserve 'personhood' --

and yes i think chimps are one set.

[Oak2004]

79. I live with an unrecognized person

To be exact, I live with a Quaker Parrot named Perry, who has an intelligence comparable to a 3-6 year old human, and who belongs to a species which has demonstrated cultural transmission in the wild.

Before I became a "bird person", I sometimes referred to the pets I'd had (cats, dogs, even my turtles) as "persons", but such references reflected more my love and appreciation for them than it did any actual awareness of any qualities of "personhood". Now, it's different.

It's impossible for me to summarize in a few words the many instances where parrot cognition has just blown me away. Where do I start? With the day my late parrot, Eagle, still a very young chick, demonstrated imaginative play (something I remembered learning "only" happened with humans)? Or the many instances where I've witnessed parrots making jokes and expressing humor? The instances where I've held back and forth conversations, in English, with parrots who could not have been merely "parroting"? Any of the many instances where my birds demonstrated an understanding of complex ideas? Or simply the fact that Perry, a rescue parrot who had been badly neglected and abused, shows every symptom of PTSD one might expect to see in a human (up to and including waking up screaming in the night)?

Obviously parrots and other highly aware species are not equivalent to competent adult humans. But they are not rats, or cattle, or chickens. They have a level of awareness that demands special legal recognition and protection. I don't say this as an animal rights activist -- I'm not just a meat eater, I'm a former hunter, "former" only because it's impossible to hike in while using a wheelchair. I say this as someone who has seen firsthand what animals nearest our cognitive abilities are capable of, in both brilliance and in suffering.

[AlienGirl]

80. My cockatoo says "I"

One of the clearest, and funniest, examples of his awareness was the time he said "I throw!" and then threw books off of the computer desk and laughed at what he'd done! He made a plan, announced it, carried it out, and then reacted to the outcome.

Tucker

[Oak2004]

99. Typical parrot humor :)

I've long ago learned that when an apparently well-behaved bird starts talking about being a "bad bird", give him or her a wide berth. The bird doesn't have a self-esteem problem, the bird is announcing intent :)

My favorite bit of parrot humor happened when I was staying temporarily with a neighbor, who had a cat, in a temporary apartment while both our apartments were being renovated by management. One day Eagle (who did not like the cat one bit, and who was flighted at the time) jumped off his playtop, swooped the cat (you know, that quasi-attack warning move birds make), then swooped my friend, then flew back to his cage. I said, offhandedly, not expecting he'd understand any of it, "If you're going to swoop everything you don't like here, why don't you go swoop the vacuum cleaner, too?". The bird immediately jumped off his cage, swooped the vacuum cleaner, landed back on his playtop, and laughed.

I'm glad I had a witness to that incident, because otherwise I'm sure no one would believe me.

[AlienGirl]

109. After he does something he shouldn't, he'll say "I'll be good!"

Then he makes cute little noises and acts contrite.

Tucker

[Ignis]

103. I'm not much of a bird person, but ...

I've spent some time with people who keep pigs as pets, and I'm really impressed at how smart they are. (The pigs, that is. ;) ) It's one thing to read a research paper that details the intelligence of pigs, and quite another to see how quickly these animals learn from their mistakes and correct their behavior to achieve a better result.

Thanks for the great anecdotes regarding parrots. :hi: It's amazing how long we wrote off parrots' language use as simple, rote repetition out of context.

[1]

90. people = humans. chimps = chimps. no, they are not people.

cats are not people.

dogs are not people.

ferrets are not people.

mice are not people.

as much as your "disney" upbringing wants it to be so... not people.

bambi isn't people either. i'm sure that will fuck up a few here as well.

[armyowalgreens]

92. There is a certain portion of the scientific community devoted to the discussion of personhood...

Your ignorance of that field of study is glaringly apparent in your post.

[1]

93. hummm... and there is a certain portion of those of us who actually live on earth...

that think your certain portion are idiots.

"glaringly apparent" on that, oh great "college student" who knows everything already...

:rofl:

[armyowalgreens]

94. Yes, mockery is surely the correct response.

:sarcasm:

Speciesism is a terrible thing.

But I should have remembered who you were before I bothered to respond. You have a history of being rude and hopelessly ignorant.

[1]

95. yes... unlike you... oh! wait!

[Ignis]

98. Where does a "Disney upbringing" enter into it?

That just makes no sense at all. Care to explain?

[AlienGirl]

107. 'Cause, ya know, all people who care about AR/AW grew up in the city

...where they never interacted with actual animals, only cartoon images of the happy creatures of the forest.

And certainly there does not exist even one vegetarian who grew up in the middle of the woods, knew how to catch and gut a fish by the time she was six, went on hunting trips with her dad every fall and helped retrieve the kill, by eight or nine gutted and plucked chickens at slaughter time and picked up the silently screaming severed heads so the squeamish farmer nighbor didn't have to handle them, saw cats and weasels and bears and coyotes and other carnivores prey upon other animals all the time, and STILL believes humans have an ethical responsibility toward animals. Naw...can't be a real person, can I?

Tucker

[AlienGirl]

108. Animal rights activists all had Disney childhoods! Just ask Marc Berkowitz.

Want to talk about "Disney upbringing" with this guy?

Tucker

[Ignis]

110. Don't dare mention Howard Lyman, either.

;)

[bigmonkey]

113. Unsupported assertions backed up with mockery.

That's all you have in this post. It's not very much. Might as well say we should all agree with you because you're always right.

Ridiculous. You could grow up.

[Quantess]

96. Does anyone remember the experimental rhesus monkey in Israel,

who was surreptitiouly filmed being operated on...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=malish+monkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=I_jWSva-HY_QsQOF6IzKAg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQqwQwAw#

[Ignis]

101. This research widens the gulf between monkeys and apes.

That being said, I'd agree that much of the monkey vivisection still being practiced is unnecessary, unscientific, and untenable.

[ddeclue]

102. no - because they are chimps.

Throws feces at OP..

:P

[Ignis]

104. Pooflinger!

For a long time, I used this picture as my screensaver:

[ddeclue]

105. Sounds like a Bond film - "Pooo -flinger..."

:rofl:

[Ignis]

106. Finally, a role Roger Moore can sink his teeth into!

:freak:

[conscious evolution]

111. Our last president was a chimp

so i would say they are human.

[deaniac21]

112. they are monkeys