Chimpanzees: Not Human, But Are They People?

[baggygreen]

Are we not much less alike than we were to neanderthals?

We use neanderthal today as a derogatory term, indicating someone who is not a human. Primates, regardless of their spots on the evolutionary tree, are still not people. Most animals are capable of independent thought, and in any domesticated animal we can see different character traits, if we look for long enough. Independent thought does not make a creature a person. Nor does having a 98% genetic similarity.

That 2% difference is what makes us people. it is the 2% which sets us above the other animals on the planet. It is that 2% which gives us thousands of languages, philosophy, (for better or worse) religion, manufactured goods, the pyramids, agriculture, yada yada.

[Stealth Hunter]

We may actually be part Neanderthal. Didn't you watch the National Geographic program on it, Neanderthal Code?

[baggygreen]

No, can't say I saw it.

Wouldnt surprise me though, the 2 species were certainly closely enough related to interbreed.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

We may actually be part Neanderthal. Didn't you watch the National Geographic program on it, Neanderthal Code?

That was a great show. Very thought provoking. When they said Neanderthals were short, stout, and had big noses, I said to myself;" I hope my friends at work aren't watching this, I'll never hear the end of it." :rotfl:

[porphy]

Interesting article and topic indeed.

Reports show that you can interact with a dwarf chimpanzee much like with a 2,5 year old child. Of course, they can't talk, their throat and mouth won't allow that. But they can learn and understand lexigrams, which each covers a few words. They also express themselves with the lexigrams in ways that wasn't taught to them. In short they have much more capability of language use, notice both natural and with instruction (as humans), than has been thought.

One thing surprised the researchers. The chimpanzee that was taught lexigrams actually started to understand speech as well (this is not responding to commands), this was not intended, but apparently the chimp learn to understand a language in many ways similar to a human (as we don't learn only through instruction either). The chimp in question now can understand simple English speech (like a basic storyline), and recognizes about 3000 spoken words.

But the question is, are they persons? This usually kicks of all kind of ways to compare animals to humans (who also is an animal, of course). DNA percentages, capability of feelings, cognitive abilities, social interaction etc... If they can be said to be persons, should they have rights? Should we treat them better? And the only way to solve this seems to be the search for a waterproof reason, or a couple of them. This is a old question indeed and open up to the general question of how we treat animals of all kind.

But most people don't need any reasons of that kind to act decent in everyday life among humans , or even to his pet. (a few maybe could have use for it ) We usually don't ask for these kind of reasons in legal court either. So, I don't ask myself, is this a person? Does this man in front of me really fit the definition of a person? I wonder if his DNA is up to it? Can he reason in a good way? Would he be able to develop or engage in science and philosophy? What if I'm evolutionary superior to him? (This is a question which really is questionable from a biological point of view, as modern biology have tried to rid itself from the 1800-centuray image of human as the crown of evolutionary tree). The point is that the whole question always slips down the slippery slope of reasons, and in the meantime the industrial treatment of animals continue every day, or as the case with some species, they risk to go extinct in the near future. The ethics is usually the reason why the person question is raised, unless you find wordplay and definitions the most interesting thing to entertain yourself with.

I recently read John Michael Coetzee and his short piece The Lives of Animals and it really captured the above situation. It's about a female novel writer who delivers a lecture about animal rights and vegetarianism at the philosophy department at university, and then goes to have a post lecture dinner... (Nice setting, as you can guess ) It really is worth reading if you are interested in finding something which opens up a new way to look at the questions at hand. But don't expect to find a list of argued reasons in favor for this or that, although many classical reasons are displayed. More like, expect to find yourself in a real ethical dilemma, and then try to acknowledge what this really means to you.


cheers Porphy

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

That was a great show. Very thought provoking. When they said Neanderthals were short, stout, and had big noses, I said to myself;" I hope my friends at work aren't watching this, I'll never hear the end of it." :rotfl:

Just checking those photos I took of you at the Meet the other day :hmm:

:p

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

We may actually be part Neanderthal. Didn't you watch the National Geographic program on it, Neanderthal Code?

The latest studies seam to suggest that it is unlikely that there was any genetic
mixing after the divergence from the common ancestor. It's still a hot topic tho.

Back on topic:
A nice animation about humans/monkeys

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Are we not much less alike than we were to neanderthals?

We use neanderthal today as a derogatory term, indicating someone who is not a human. Primates, regardless of their spots on the evolutionary tree, are still not people. Most animals are capable of independent thought, and in any domesticated animal we can see different character traits, if we look for long enough. Independent thought does not make a creature a person. Nor does having a 98% genetic similarity.

That 2% difference is what makes us people. it is the 2% which sets us above the other animals on the planet. It is that 2% which gives us thousands of languages, philosophy, (for better or worse) religion, manufactured goods, the pyramids, agriculture, yada yada.

All the many things we use to destroy ourselves, you mean?

I wouldn't be so proud on genes being like they are. For evolution, we are no successful design, we are just a test run of a draft design that apparently has led into a dead end. the most successful design of life on this planet you find in the realms of one-cellular life forms. we will never overcome it, but it can easily overcome us.

So don't be so easy about declaring mankind to be set above all other life on earth. I personally find the lifeform of sharks for example far more impressive - their design is so perfect that they haven't chnaged since millions of years. Or isopods (woodlouses? -> Asseln). One of the most succesful designs of evolution on planet earth. Bacterias live practically everywhere on this planet, in the coldest and in the hottest places, in boiling liquids and at pressures that would turn every sub into a frisbee and every human body into white-bled mince. they - notz us - are the true rulers of this planet.

Homo Sapiens still needs to prove his design advantage, and so far it seems that the individual tool-related intelliegnce we are so proud of is not an advantage but an obstacle for our survival as an evolutionary design.

Such things and their assessments need to be approached from a less antropocentric perspective. and human philosophy and woprks of arts - in the end are not interresting for evolution or nature, but only for the human mind itself that hs created them. Already for the dog living with the owner of that mind in the same household, it all means nothing. and for the germs on planet Mars ( ) it means nothing as well.

Fact is that we cannot recognize an intelligence that is too different from our own, and that can - but must not - include descriuptions of "below us", or "above us".

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

All the many things we use to destroy ourselves, you mean?

I wouldn't be so proud on genes being like they are. For evolution, we are no successful design, we are just a test run of a draft design that apparently has led into a dead end. the most successful design of life on this planet you find in the realms of one-cellular life forms. we will never overcome it, but it can easily overcome us.

So don't be so easy about declaring mankind to be set above all other life on earth. I personally find the lifeform of sharks for example far more impressive - their design is so perfect that they haven't chnaged since millions of years. Or isopods (woodlouses? -> Asseln). One of the most succesful designs of evolution on planet earth. Bacterias live practically everywhere on this planet, in the coldest and in the hottest places, in boiling liquids and at pressures that would turn every sub into a frisbee and every human body into white-bled mince. they - notz us - are the true rulers of this planet.

Homo Sapiens still needs to prove his design advantage, and so far it seems that the individual tool-related intelliegnce we are so proud of is not an advantage but an obstacle for our survival as an evolutionary design.

Such things and their assessments need to be approached from a less antropocentric perspective. and human philosophy and woprks of arts - in the end are not interresting for evolution or nature, but only for the human mind itself that hs created them. Already for the dog living with the owner of that mind in the same household, it all means nothing. and for the germs on planet Mars ( ) it means nothing as well.

Fact is that we cannot recognize an intelligence that is too different from our own, and that can - but must not - include descriuptions of "below us", or "above us".

Point taken.

Perhaps I ought to have changed "above/below" to something more like homo sapiens being the creature who can make the biggest impact on the largest number of different species on the globe.

You're right about the other creatures, but at the same time whilst some microbes enjoy the heat and others the cold, you wouldn't find the same microbe thriving in both places. Sharks are the same, in the sense that they may thrive under water (yes, more than half the planet, i know ) but they dont really forayonto land to hunt - and thank heavens for that!!! I conjured up mental pictures of great whites flopping up and down the main streets of coastal cities and towns, grabbing a snack and jumping back in the water!:rotfl:

On a more serious note, I'd love to come back in 20,000 or even 50,000 years time and see what homo sapiens has become, will we keep evolving or have we reached the pinnacle of our design?? I can't see how we'll go much further, possibly this branch of the evolutionary tree is complete and its time for another to take over and continue growing..:hmm: