NationStates Jolt Archive

...be proven to have morality, read and understand what they read, and communicate with humans,

Then should they be given equal rights to humans?

Morality in chimps (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Ape language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language)
Reading-So far, this appears not to have been tried, but it may be possible.

A lot of the reasons given for why non-human animals are inferior are that they don't speak and have no morals. There are plenty of humans who don't speak and have no morals, but they have rights just the same. Just because we cannot communicate with them, does not mean they can't speak.

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

If those stories are real, then I'm not sure what to believe.

...be proven to have morality, read and understand what they read, and communicate with humans,

Then should they be given equal rights to humans?

Morality in chimps (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Ape language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language)
Reading-So far, this appears not to have been tried, but it may be possible.

A lot of the reasons given for why non-human animals are inferior are that they don't speak and have no morals. There are plenty of humans who don't speak and have no morals, but they have rights just the same. Just because we cannot communicate with them, does not mean they can't speak.
That depends on what rights you want to give them. Rights to own property, citizenship, schooling, etc? That would just be silly. They can't really even be given the right to own themselves, because they can't care for themselves.

However, an animal that has proved capable of communication like that, deserves to be protected.

I guess I'd say give them the same rights as, say, a young child or a severely mentally handicapped person.

That depends on what rights you want to give them. Rights to own property, citizenship, schooling, etc? That would just be silly. They can't really even be given the right to own themselves, because they can't care for themselves.

However, an animal that has proved capable of communication like that, deserves to be protected.

I guess I'd say give them the same rights as, say, a young child or a severely mentally handicapped person.

A young child and severely mentally handicapped humans do not have the things I specified. And a dog has already been said to have the intelligence of a 5-year old child; primates have more intelligence than dogs.

I don't think we can judge humanity as a strict set of rules. It has to have a significant blur to it.

They wouldn't be "given" those rights in that case.

They would simply have them.

They wouldn't be "given" those rights in that case.

They would simply have them.

Yes, but would people acknowledge their rights?

...be proven to have morality, read and understand what they read, and communicate with humans,

Then should they be given equal rights to humans?



Is this another Bush bashing thread?

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Intelligent apes/monkeys, they deserve the right to live and exist and all that whatnot. Like someone also said, however, it's not like you can seriously expect to give them a right to property and the like though. I don't think simple animals should ever have the same rights as animals, though. Nutjobs like PETA want to convince me that delicious chicken I'm currently consuming is more important than all the starving humans in the world. That's just ridiculous.

Lol are we going to start giving chimps the right to vote or something now?

But no animal can't have equal rights as a human because you can never be "fair" to them. They can't speak they can't tell you what they want in the courtroom. Any argument revolving what right they "should" have revolves around the humans who believe them rather than the chimps themselves. Therefore I propose that the best you can do for animals like chimps is leave them in the jungle and let them figure out how they should live themselves.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Ants are pretty tight too.

Ants are pretty tight too.

I think actually they find better reasons for war too.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?
There are also ants that have domesticated aphids, protecting them, caring for the females, and taking them from varying feeding locations to get a better output of nutrients the aphids secrete and the ants eat store away/eat.

Even if the hypothetical animal was proven superior to humans, it would not be ethical to give them equal rights. In the duty to thrive any animal has to look out for number one, both as an individual and as a member of a species. (I am not advocating hedonism)

When push comes to shove in a matter of survival, a human has to take his own precedence over other forms of life just as another animal has to hold itself over other lifeforms.

That said, the ideal is to treat all living creatures with the same rights, violating them only as a necessity.

I think actually they find better reasons for war too.
Oh, you're such a downer.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Really? I thought apes do battle in the jungle all the time, and sometimes even cannibalise each other? Or are they different species?

I think actually they find better reasons for war too.

Like what? Natural Resources? Territory?
Sounds familiar to me. I think the only reason that humans and ants are the only ones that make war on there own species is that the others are in able to organize large populations to actually make war, not some sort of morality unknown to us.

Really? I thought apes do battle in the jungle all the time, and sometimes even cannibalise each other? Or are they different species?
I think at most apes and other animals will get into skirmishes, have rivalries. Ants will have entire colony-vs-colony wars, conquering the other colonies and capturing them as their own or whatnot and enslaving survivors.

Like what? Natural Resources? Territory?
Sounds familiar to me. I think the only reason that humans and ants are the only ones that make war on there own species is that the others are in able to organize large populations to actually make war, not some sort of morality unknown to us.
Well I think my comment would have had more context with 'more honest' rather than better.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?See, this always pisses me off because of the loose terms used to define "war", "murder", etcetera. Lions kill each other over territory all the time, fighting fish, dogs, I've seen a cat kill another cat over pissing on a tree, animals kill their own species all the time. We probably even do it less comparatively.

Really? I thought apes do battle in the jungle all the time, and sometimes even cannibalise each other? Or are they different species?

I think your confusing animals fighting with each other with making war, and the difference is massive. Humans and Ants organize themselves into mass populations and collectively act to kill other 'nations', that's alot different than a few birds fightings or whatever.

That kanzi ape is pretty cool, apparently he's played guitar with paul mccartney.

They say his word comprehension is about equal to a 2 and a half year olds. That's still not the level of a retarded adult.

...be proven to have morality, read and understand what they read, and communicate with humans,

Then should they be given equal rights to humans?

Morality in chimps (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Ape language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language)
Reading-So far, this appears not to have been tried, but it may be possible.

A lot of the reasons given for why non-human animals are inferior are that they don't speak and have no morals. There are plenty of humans who don't speak and have no morals, but they have rights just the same. Just because we cannot communicate with them, does not mean they can't speak.
Of course, I would be willing to grant them limited rights. Now, have them show human-level intelligence and immediate full rights would be granted from me, because I would not discriminate.

I say limited rights for what you ascribe because I don't know if they have the full intelligence yet to truly understand what the rights mean and use them wisely.

Although, it would be helpful if communication difficulties were easier to solve.

IIRC Koko the gorilla (who knows about 1,000 sign language words and understands about 2,000 english words) has an IQ of 75-95... which puts her ahead of a certain world leader! *hides*

But seriously, IIRC an IQ of 84 would put her ahead of about 16% of all humans, which is rather impressive.

I think that any living being with a central nervous system is a carrier of some individual rights.
Also, any living being with some degree of self-consciousness has even more rights.

To sum it up, if a living being can pass the Turing test, it is on par with humans. He isn't human, but he is a person and could even become a full-fledged citizen.

There are plenty of humans who don't speak and have no morals, but they have rights just the same.

Yeah, I believe you are referring to people who are DEAD. I can't conceive of a being who is completely devoid of a "moral" framework---even the Thuggee cult in India strangled people for Kali, thus staving off armageddon for another 1000 years (thank you, Thugs!). And if there IS a being who, beyond all odds, happens to be completely, 100% amoral, what are the chances that he or she couldn't speak as well? Not only that, but you must remember that even a mute is capable of communication. It's just visual rather than aural.

Yeah, I believe you are referring to people who are DEAD. I can't conceive of a being who is completely devoid of a "moral" framework---even the Thuggee cult in India strangled people for Kali, thus staving off armageddon for another 1000 years (thank you, Thugs!). And if there IS a being who, beyond all odds, happens to be completely, 100% amoral, what are the chances that he or she couldn't speak as well? Not only that, but you must remember that even a mute is capable of communication. It's just visual rather than aural.

*cough* Bush *cough*

Yes, but would people acknowledge their rights?

That's up to those people. Personally I think that getting all the humans to acknowledge human rights takes a higher priority.

*cough* Bush *cough*

Perfect example! The guy has morality flowing from his presidential ass cheeks like some holy diarrhea, but in the circumstances described above, this would mean he has rights.

If they would be capable of understanding politics, law, property, contracts and the other concepts a citizen of a human society needs to deal with and still want to live as we humans do then let them have the same legal status as humans.

In any other case it's protection against animal cruelty and such they should have, not rights.


As for "morality", animals have plenty of traits we humans could interpret as morality. For example in some species males compete over females in non lethal ways even though they could easily win by killing the opponent. Why? Morality compels them to refrain form murdering each other? Selfish gain to the individual in the form of reduced risk of death? An evolutionary advantage of the species as a whole to not reducing it's own numbers too much?

A lot of the reasons given for why non-human animals are inferior are that they don't speak and have no morals.

Nah. It's racism. They look different, don't speak our language and eat weird stuff.

If there really are apes as smart as retarded humans, they should get the same rights as retarded humans. It will be hilarious when people start complaining about gorillas stealing our jobs. But personally I doubt that there are any animals smarter than a 5 year old.

From wikipedia:
All Ball was the pet cat of Koko, the famous gorilla living in Woodside, California, who communicates through sign language. In the summer of 1974, Koko asked her trainer, Dr. Francine 'Penny' Patterson, for a cat. Koko selected a gray male Manx from a litter of abandoned kittens and named it All Ball. This breed is unusual in that it has no tail, and researchers wondered whether that fact influenced Koko's choice. Koko cared for the kitten as if it were a baby gorilla. In December of that same year, All Ball escaped from Koko's cage and was hit and killed by a car.

Later, upon learning that All Ball had gone, Koko communicated with her trainers using the sign language symbols for "cry" and "sad." Researchers noted this fact in the debate over whether non-human species can have human-like emotions. It has been said that Koko cried for two days after the event.
I think that counts as morality.

Heck no. I mean, what if there are homosexual apes? They can't have equal rights. Or apes with really dark fur? We'd have to give them job preference and that's hardly definitive of equality. Next thing you know these apes would want to eat in the same restaurant as me, picking bugs off of one another while I eat escargot. I just couldn't tolerate that.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Clearly you've never seen Thaigirl chase the other cats, hissing and spitting... ;/

A young child and severely mentally handicapped humans do not have the things I specified. And a dog has already been said to have the intelligence of a 5-year old child; primates have more intelligence than dogs.

A dog smarter than a child of 5-year old?

Or you know very very very smart dogs, or you know only very very very dumb kids....

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

No, that's not true.

Chimpanzees like warfare as well.

IIRC Koko the gorilla (who knows about 1,000 sign language words and understands about 2,000 english words) has an IQ of 75-95... which puts her ahead of a certain world leader! *hides*

But seriously, IIRC an IQ of 84 would put her ahead of about 16% of all humans, which is rather impressive.

Bull. I'm pretty sure that she did not have an IQ of 75-95.

Where did you read this? In some women magazine?

Clearly you've never seen Thaigirl chase the other cats, hissing and spitting... ;/

Ants are a lot more sophisticated than that. Two cats fighting each other is somewhat different than large-scale organisation and battle.

If there really are apes as smart as retarded humans, they should get the same rights as retarded humans. It will be hilarious when people start complaining about gorillas stealing our jobs. But personally I doubt that there are any animals smarter than a 5 year old.

From wikipedia:

I think that counts as morality.

Dogs can be sad as well. Some even die when their master is gone...

Being sad, doesn't make you moral.

And indeed there's not one animal around which is smarter than a 5-year old child.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?
I guess nobody else has heard of the Gabon Chimpanzee war, huh?

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Just about any insect/animal that forms large groups will fight other packs for control. What are unique are two entirely seperate species attacking in a war like circumstances. I.E. Hornets vs Ants, Humans vs Everything, etc.

Bull. I'm pretty sure that she did not have an IQ of 75-95.

Where did you read this? In some women magazine?

My mistake, 70-95 not 75-95.

http://www.koko.org/world/

My mistake, 70-95 not 75-95.

http://www.koko.org/world/

You really believe everything, don't you?

Look in the same text...

Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal." Michael, the male silverback gorilla who grew up with Koko, had a working vocabulary of over 600 signs.

You have a clue how big the vocabulary is of a 'normal' human? ('normal' is misused, it should be 'average')

And besides vocabulary, ask Koko to drive to the local supermarket, ask Koko to build a house, ask Koko to write a computer program, to produce music & art...

KOKO isn't as smart as a 'normal' human...

The idea alone is ridiculous.

Bull. I'm pretty sure that she did not have an IQ of 75-95.

Where did you read this? In some women magazine?

You should perhaps read a woman's magazine. They aren't quite as dumb as they were twenty years ago.

Think Playboy magazine. You read it for shallow gratification, but if challenged you can pull real facts out of the 'other' articles.

*zaps with wand of Kilgore Trout*

Perfect example! The guy has morality flowing from his presidential ass cheeks like some holy diarrhea, but in the circumstances described above, this would mean he has rights.

Don't forget there's a disturbingly large number of Americans who worship him enough to line up for Dirty Sanchezes.

Eat them before they eat us!!!! (http://www.boscovs.com/wcsstore/boscovs/images/store/product/images/5644286127200324.jpg;pv6c3dd86dec0bf2ac)

I guess nobody else has heard of the Gabon Chimpanzee war, huh?

I hadn't. Here's a link to an article about it, for those like me who hadn't heard of it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EEDE1139F930A25756C0A961958260

You should perhaps read a woman's magazine. They aren't quite as dumb as they were twenty years ago.

Think Playboy magazine. You read it for shallow gratification, but if challenged you can pull real facts out of the 'other' articles.

*zaps with wand of Kilgore Trout*

Is it? When I am talking about women magazines, I'm not talking about Playboy but more about something as...

http://www.nwdaily.co.uk/

My girlfriend is reading that stuff.

4 weeks ago, headline on the cover of such magazine: "Why 90% of men are pricks"

One week ago, new issue of the same magazine, headline: "How to get a man?"

Pffffft.

You really believe everything, don't you?

Look in the same text...

Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal." Michael, the male silverback gorilla who grew up with Koko, had a working vocabulary of over 600 signs.

So you admit you were wrong, yes? Koko's IQ has indeed tested in what is considered the low-normal range for humans.


You have a clue how big the vocabulary is of a 'normal' human?

Yes. Do you?


('normal' is misused, it should be 'average')

Actually, no, in this case "normal" is the correct term.

4 weeks ago, headline on the cover of such magazine: "Why 90% of men are pricks"

One week ago, new issue of the same magazine, headline: "How to get a man?"

Pffffft.

What's weird about that? Women are constantly told that all men are babies and jerks and dirty rotten scoundrels, but they're also told that no woman can be complete unless she's spending her life catering to a man and cleaning up his messes. Such is patriarchy. If you have a problem with that sexist bullshit then that's awesome (because so do I), but it's pretty irrelevant to this topic.

You really believe everything, don't you?

Look in the same text...

Koko has a tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale, where 100 is considered "normal." Michael, the male silverback gorilla who grew up with Koko, had a working vocabulary of over 600 signs.

You have a clue how big the vocabulary is of a 'normal' human? ('normal' is misused, it should be 'average')

And besides vocabulary, ask Koko to drive to the local supermarket, ask Koko to build a house, ask Koko to write a computer program, to produce music & art...

KOKO isn't as smart as a 'normal' human...

The idea alone is ridiculous.

Brings me to one of my favourite movie quotes of all time, from "I, Robot".

Setting: Police officer and robot in a room, the police officer expounding on why a robot isn't as good as a human being, how humans have imagination and emotions that make them "better".
Officer: Can you paint a picture? Can you create a symphony?
Robot, looking up calmly: Can you?

Brings me to one of my favourite movie quotes of all time, from "I, Robot".

Setting: Police officer and robot in a room, the police officer expounding on why a robot isn't as good as a human being, how humans have imagination and emotions that make them "better".
Officer: Can you paint a picture? Can you create a symphony?
Robot, looking up calmly: Can you?
Indeed.

I, personally, cannot build a house. I could probably build a fairly decent wall, due to my training in building theater sets, but a house? No chance.

I could "make music" in the sense that I can hum random notes that may sound somewhat nice, but I'm aware of several bird species that are more inventive and musically gifted than I am in this regard.

I certainly cannot write a computer program. I'm sure I could learn a computer language if given the time to do so, just like Koko learned sign language, but I don't really see how that makes me smarter than she is.

And as for driving...I suppose I can drive better than a gorilla, but I have to think that this may be at least partly due to the fact that there are currently no models on the market which were designed for the gorilla consumer.

So you admit you were wrong, yes? Koko's IQ has indeed tested in what is considered the low-normal range for humans.


Yes. Do you?


Actually, no, in this case "normal" is the correct term.

Aaaargh!

No, I do not admit.

You know that its vocabulary is dozen times smaller.

I would like to see, that this animal could solve a human based IQ test. :)

That animal, despite that he's smart for animal, can't beat on a congnitive level a dumb human (but still 'normal').

No, 'normal' is wrongly used. 'Cause all people with an IQ of 90 or less, or all the ones with an IQ of 11O or more would be abnormal.

100 is the average, not the 'normal' level!

But hey, if you really want to believe that 1 monkey is smarter than lots of 'dumb' (but still normal!) humans... :)

Indeed.

I, personally, cannot build a house. I could probably build a fairly decent wall, due to my training in building theater sets, but a house? No chance.

I could "make music" in the sense that I can hum random notes that may sound somewhat nice, but I'm aware of several bird species that are more inventive and musically gifted than I am in this regard.

I certainly cannot write a computer program. I'm sure I could learn a computer language if given the time to do so, just like Koko learned sign language, but I don't really see how that makes me smarter than she is.

And as for driving...I suppose I can drive better than a gorilla, but I have to think that this may be at least partly due to the fact that there are currently no models on the market which were designed for the gorilla consumer.



Wahaha. Your really believe it. I give up. :)

Aaaargh!

No, I do not admit.

You know that its vocabulary is dozen times smaller.

Depends on the human. An educated human with IQ around 100 probably knows 20,000 words, but only uses a thousand or so on a regular basis. An educated human has also had a whole helluva lot more exposure to unusual vocabulary than Koko has had.


I would like to see, that this animal could solve a human based IQ test. :)

Apparently she could. She was tested by professionals.


That animal, despite that he's smart for animal, can't beat on a congnitive level a dumb human (but still 'normal').

Koko tested between 70-95 IQ. If we split the difference and say her IQ is 80 or so, then she is more intelligent than any humans scoring between 70-79 IQ. Those humans are, indeed, within what is defined as "normal" range for IQ. So Koko very well may be more intelligent than some "normal" humans, as defined by IQ testing.

Even if Koko's IQ is actually 70, the bottom of the range listed, she still would then be smarter than 5% of human beings. If those 5% of human beings, with IQs lower than Koko, are considered to have a given set of rights as human beings, why do we withhold such rights from Koko?


No, 'normal' is wrongly used. 'Cause all people with an IQ of 90 or less, or all the ones with an IQ of 11O or more would be abnormal.

You are incorrect.


100 is the average, not the 'normal' level!

Yes, 100 is the average. The "normal" range is typically defined as extending from 70-130 IQ.

The average human will fall within the normal range. However, it's not "average" to have an IQ of 125. So there are individuals who are normal but not average.


But hey, if you really want to believe that 1 monkey is smarter than lots of 'dumb' (but still normal!) humans... :)
What I want to believe is irrelevant. We're talking about fact, here.

Wahaha. Your really believe it. I give up. :)
Yes, I tend to "believe" facts. Don't you?

Depends on the human. An educated human with IQ around 100 probably knows 20,000 words, but only uses a thousand or so on a regular basis. An educated human has also had a whole helluva lot more exposure to unusual vocabulary than Koko has had.


Apparently she could. She was tested by professionals.


Koko tested between 70-95 IQ. If we split the difference and say her IQ is 80 or so, then she is more intelligent than any humans scoring between 70-79 IQ. Those humans are, indeed, within what is defined as "normal" range for IQ. So Koko very well may be more intelligent than some "normal" humans, as defined by IQ testing.

Even if Koko's IQ is actually 70, the bottom of the range listed, she still would then be smarter than 5% of human beings. If those 5% of human beings, with IQs lower than Koko, are considered to have a given set of rights as human beings, why do we withhold such rights from Koko?


You are incorrect.


Yes, 100 is the average. The "normal" range is typically defined as extending from 70-130 IQ.

The average human will fall within the normal range. However, it's not "average" to have an IQ of 125. So there are individuals who are normal but not average.


What I want to believe is irrelevant. We're talking about fact, here.

How I love logical arguments. :D

Mental capacity has no place in this issue.

Human beings have rights that are logically derived from nature. Every right a human has can be justified by applying natural law.

If you apply the same logic to any other living creature, you will get the same results in ethics. In order to thrive, a creature needs life and freedom.

The reason why we don't hold animals as equals is because they are not biologically equal. Each species has a duty to continue itself at all costs. Nature at times will not allow humans to both meet their own needs and respect the rights of animals fully. But the ideal is to survive while keeping the violations of other species' rights to a minimum.

In addition to "I, Robot" a book called "Fuzzy Sapiens" presented a good discussion about when another being should be entitled to the same rights as humans.

gorilla consumer.


Bwhahahahahah jeez! Heh sorry that just conjured up a strange image!

The reason why we don't hold animals as equals is because they are not biologically equal.
You and I aren't biologically equal, either. Does this mean I don't have to respect any of your rights?

What does reading have to do with anything? We cannot translate dolphin or whalesong so we cannot know if they are talking or what they are signalling? For all we know if they are talking, they are talking about things beyond our understanding, or so different that it baffles us completely.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/warbling_whales_speak_a_language_all_their_own_10318.html

I would like to see, that this animal could solve a human based IQ test. :)


IIRC, there is an intelligence test at which pigeons consistently outperform humans. I forget the details - I split up with the girlfriend (she was a psychologist) who told me about it long ago - but I think it has to do with visual recognition and ability to spot patterns.
I wouldn't bother bringing this up, just in case I'm remembering it wrong, but while looking for information about it just now I found this transcript:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1763324.htm
And then there are pigeons, not noted for brain power as a rule, but with highly developed powers of perception. When pigeons are trained to sit alongside industrial conveyor belts, they can be better than humans at picking out components that have got a bit missing or are slightly misshapen. They can learn to recognise dozens of computer icons and pick out ones that don't match a pattern. In other words they can form categories. And who can match a homing pigeon when it comes to finding the way home? Pigeons will use landmarks when they can, but if they are experimentally fitted with frosted contact lenses, they will still get home, even if they can't find the way into the loft when they arrive. Lots of animals can do things with their brains that we can't do with ours.
- Melvin Bolton

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Actually Dr. Goodall reported a war between two groups.....

Lol are we going to start giving chimps the right to vote or something now?


Why not? They probably vote as well as the average human.

But no animal can't have equal rights as a human because you can never be "fair" to them. They can't speak they can't tell you what they want in the courtroom.


People can't always speak for themselves as well.

What exactly would a chimp sue over?


Any argument revolving what right they "should" have revolves around the humans who believe them rather than the chimps themselves. Therefore I propose that the best you can do for animals like chimps is leave them in the jungle and let them figure out how they should live themselves.

Why not save the time and simply wipe them out? The jungles are disappearing......

Really? I thought apes do battle in the jungle all the time, and sometimes even cannibalise each other? Or are they different species?

They do a great deal of posturing and there is violence from time to time.

Cannibalism is rare but it has happened. Are you thinking of them eating monkeys?

If they would be capable of understanding politics, law, property, contracts and the other concepts a citizen of a human society needs to deal with and still want to live as we humans do then let them have the same legal status as humans.


Well? By those examples you could revoke human status from many people.

Chimps have society, they practice politics, they understand property and have rudimentary contracts(barter and favors).

No, that's not true.

Chimpanzees like warfare as well.

Well....not exactly. There are have been a couple reported instances that could be classified as a war(IE Dr. Goodall) but to say they like it is not correct.

I guess nobody else has heard of the Gabon Chimpanzee war, huh?

:)

---gah wrong key----

Note: It's a pdf....

http://www-radar.jpl.nasa.gov/africamap/Lope_ri.pdf

Alex the parrot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_%28parrot%29) was pretty amazing too. (Edit: And N'kisi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%27kisi), for that matter.)

We're going to have to seriously start re-assessing what intelligence means, taking into account the cognitive skills demonstrated by bonobos, parrots such as Alex, and (to a lesser degree perhaps) some animals such as dogs.

Even if Koko's IQ is actually 70, the bottom of the range listed, she still would then be smarter than 5% of human beings. If those 5% of human beings, with IQs lower than Koko, are considered to have a given set of rights as human beings, why do we withhold such rights from Koko?


Indeed.

Intelligent apes/monkeys, they deserve the right to live and exist and all that whatnot. Like someone also said, however, it's not like you can seriously expect to give them a right to property and the like though. I don't think simple animals should ever have the same rights as animals, though. Nutjobs like PETA want to convince me that delicious chicken I'm currently consuming is more important than all the starving humans in the world. That's just ridiculous.

PETA is irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

Lol are we going to start giving chimps the right to vote or something now?

But no animal can't have equal rights as a human because you can never be "fair" to them. They can't speak they can't tell you what they want in the courtroom. Any argument revolving what right they "should" have revolves around the humans who believe them rather than the chimps themselves. Therefore I propose that the best you can do for animals like chimps is leave them in the jungle and let them figure out how they should live themselves.

If they are capable of respecting and using that right at least reasonably well, why not? They certainly can speak, we just don't understand it. You're just thinking now. In the future, we will be able to communicate with them.

I've seen a cat kill another cat over pissing on a tree

Cats have interesting punishments for disorderly conduct...

I think that any living being with a central nervous system is a carrier of some individual rights.
Also, any living being with some degree of self-consciousness has even more rights.

To sum it up, if a living being can pass the Turing test, it is on par with humans. He isn't human, but he is a person and could even become a full-fledged citizen.

QFT

Yeah, I believe you are referring to people who are DEAD. I can't conceive of a being who is completely devoid of a "moral" framework---even the Thuggee cult in India strangled people for Kali, thus staving off armageddon for another 1000 years (thank you, Thugs!). And if there IS a being who, beyond all odds, happens to be completely, 100% amoral, what are the chances that he or she couldn't speak as well? Not only that, but you must remember that even a mute is capable of communication. It's just visual rather than aural.

I'm sure several of the 6.5+ billion people have no morals.

Nah. It's racism. They look different, don't speak our language and eat weird stuff.

QFT

If there really are apes as smart as retarded humans, they should get the same rights as retarded humans. It will be hilarious when people start complaining about gorillas stealing our jobs. But personally I doubt that there are any animals smarter than a 5 year old.
lol and thanks for bringing up Koko.

Heck no. I mean, what if there are homosexual apes? They can't have equal rights. Or apes with really dark fur? We'd have to give them job preference and that's hardly definitive of equality. Next thing you know these apes would want to eat in the same restaurant as me, picking bugs off of one another while I eat escargot. I just couldn't tolerate that.

The same could be said about humans with different skin colors. Or not even. Plenty of humans eat insects. Or was that satire?

Dogs can be sad as well. Some even die when their master is gone...

Being sad, doesn't make you moral.

And indeed there's not one animal around which is smarter than a 5-year old child.

Do you have proof of that? It's extremely likely that many other primates are about as competent as humans.

Brings me to one of my favourite movie quotes of all time, from "I, Robot".

Setting: Police officer and robot in a room, the police officer expounding on why a robot isn't as good as a human being, how humans have imagination and emotions that make them "better".
Officer: Can you paint a picture? Can you create a symphony?
Robot, looking up calmly: Can you?

I thought of that also. It's a very good point. :)

Indeed.

I, personally, cannot build a house. I could probably build a fairly decent wall, due to my training in building theater sets, but a house? No chance.

I could "make music" in the sense that I can hum random notes that may sound somewhat nice, but I'm aware of several bird species that are more inventive and musically gifted than I am in this regard.

I certainly cannot write a computer program. I'm sure I could learn a computer language if given the time to do so, just like Koko learned sign language, but I don't really see how that makes me smarter than she is.

And as for driving...I suppose I can drive better than a gorilla, but I have to think that this may be at least partly due to the fact that there are currently no models on the market which were designed for the gorilla consumer.

You and I aren't biologically equal, either. Does this mean I don't have to respect any of your rights?

Bottle, I love you. :fluffle:

hdkxeukxetk
I'm sure if a human was taught the way the pigeons were taught, they could also perform well. These tests just atke random humans and say "Here, find what's wrong."

Well? By those examples you could revoke human status from many people.

Chimps have society, they practice politics, they understand property and have rudimentary contracts(barter and favors).

Not that I don't believe you, but I would like some sources on that, if you can, for my own arguments.

She is bound for islands in the Caribbean, where Roughgarden will join her in a few weeks to study how lizards partition space—“basically, how lizards negotiate real estate,” Roughgarden explains.
Source (http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2004/mayjun/features/roughgarden.html)

Look at that: property rights in "mere" lizards.

Not that I don't believe you, but I would like some sources on that, if you can, for my own arguments.

A good source for the politics is Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner ape both by Franz De Waal

http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3674049-8072943?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193126795&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Frans-Waal/dp/B000GUJHJO/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-3674049-8072943?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193126795&sr=1-2

Depends on the human. An educated human with IQ around 100 probably knows 20,000 words, but only uses a thousand or so on a regular basis. An educated human has also had a whole helluva lot more exposure to unusual vocabulary than Koko has had.

20.000 vs. 2,000 words for Koko...


Apparently she could. She was tested by professionals.

How do you know? It's not written at the website of Koko.

Koko tested between 70-95 IQ. If we split the difference and say her IQ is 80 or so, then she is more intelligent than any humans scoring between 70-79 IQ. Those humans are, indeed, within what is defined as "normal" range for IQ. So Koko very well may be more intelligent than some "normal" humans, as defined by IQ testing.

No, she doesn't. Btw IQ test have no miscalculation of 25 points...

Even if Koko's IQ is actually 70, the bottom of the range listed, she still would then be smarter than 5% of human beings. If those 5% of human beings, with IQs lower than Koko, are considered to have a given set of rights as human beings, why do we withhold such rights from Koko?


You are incorrect.

Is it? If it was 70, she would suffer from borderline mental retardation.
If she scored 50-69, she would suffer from mild mental retardation

Yes, 100 is the average. The "normal" range is typically defined as extending from 70-130 IQ.

I don't know which environment you are visiting, but I don't call those ranges "normal"

The average human will fall within the normal range. However, it's not "average" to have an IQ of 125. So there are individuals who are normal but not average.

No the average is 100.

Doh, but you said...

Yes, 100 is the average. The "normal" range is typically defined as extending from 70-130 IQ.

What I want to believe is irrelevant. We're talking about fact, here.

Yeps. Be good, maybe Santa Claus will visit you in December.

absolutely hell yes. failing to do so would be a serious mark against earth, when the day comes, that i most likely will, that this world applies to join the gallactic united nations.

it would also be a serious mark against humanity's own morality to fail to.

=^^=
.../\...

What exactly would a chimp sue over?


Maybe, his home being destroyed, or his children or his tribe being threatened.

Anyway, that's why (some) countries have mandatory penal action: some actions deserve trial, even if the victim doesn't sue anyone because he is unable to do so. If we humans would recognise rights to chimpanzees, of course we would be compelled to take actions to protect and enforce those rights, independently of the chimpanzees' requests or lack thereof.

20.000 vs. 2,000 words for Koko...

Yes, 20,000 KNOWN words, and a couple thousand USED words...for an EDUCATED HUMAN WITH AN IQ OF 100.

Compared to a female gorilla (who presumably has not been to university) with an IQ of between 70-95.


How do you know? It's not written at the website of Koko.

Perhaps you might want to research this subject before you presume to question the results obtained by professional researchers?


No, she doesn't. Btw IQ test have no miscalculation of 25 points...

Yes, she does, and yes, they most certainly do when a human IQ test is applied to a gorilla. Seriously, read before you speak. You are misinformed on this topic.


Is it? If it was 70, she would suffer from borderline mental retardation.
If she scored 50-69, she would suffer from mild mental retardation

What is your point here? I said:

"Even if Koko's IQ is actually 70, the bottom of the range listed, she still would then be smarter than 5% of human beings."

This is how standard deviation on IQ scoring works. Do you know what you're talking about?


I don't know which environment you are visiting, but I don't call those ranges "normal"

The people who define IQ scoring do. And, frankly, their opinion matters more than yours in this case.



No the average is 100.

Doh, but you said...

There must be a language problem here.


Yeps. Be good, maybe Santa Claus will visit you in December.
Do you have any factual information to present? So far you're just stamping your foot and saying "nuh-uh," and you don't even appear to understand how IQ testing works.

If you'd rather continue flinging verbal poo at me that's fine, but I don't really think it's going to help your case.

Yes, 20,000 KNOWN words, and a couple thousand USED words...for an EDUCATED HUMAN WITH AN IQ OF 100.

Bottle, I didn't want to offend you.

Look, Koko is smart, but not as smart as some "normal" humans.

She has a smaller brain, less neurons, less this, less that. So its hardware is already lower as that of us humans.

Yes I know something about IQ Tests

Since I'm a usability engineer and thus know little about cognitive psychology, I should know what is been tested, how and why.

First of all, I don't believe that any animal could solve rather difficult vocabulary- or logical/arithmetic problems. Could it solve simple ones? Yes. Even some birds can do maths.

And 95% of any 'official' IQ test is testing those two types of intelligence: logical/arithmetic and vocabulary intelligence.

Even uneducated people have far more vocabulary as Koko.

Besides testing, Koko can’t even solve small, easy human oriented things, just ‘cause it is a gorilla!

Is she aware she is captured?
Is she having a higher morality as us humans?
Can it be religious or not?
Is she having a cosmology?
Is she understanding the concept of money?
Is she obeying the law? (No, it's not, I believe she regularly is taking hooters... :p)
Does she understand the concept future?

Well most borderliners and morons understand all these things…


If she was as smart as most humans, than this Koko should be released now.

If she was as smart as most humans, believe me, I would know it, it would be like an exploding bomb in my world.

I can imagine that you like the idea of an animal smarter than humans, but that doesn’t say it actually is.

There are tons of people that say things like:

“My dog understands me better than my husband”
“I trust animals more than people”

It is saying more about those people as about the eventual smartness of any animal.

I recognized that you are labelling men easily, do I have to say more or is it clear to what I’m pointing at?

There are tons of people that say things like:

“My dog understands me better than my husband”
“I trust animals more than people”

It is saying more about those people as about the eventual smartness of any animal.




yes - something I've often thought

i have no doubt at all that many animals are very intelligent - they have to be in order to survive, it's a bit more complicated that just basic reproduction and animal instinct. But the same level of intelligence as humans or higher? Not likely, well not without an enormous amount of human interference.

Did you know that ants and humans are the only two species to make war on their own kind?

Then it's simple. We must destroy the ants. Make ready.

I like chimps and apes. I would hate to see their morality slip down to human level.

I like chimps and apes. I would hate to see their morality slip down to human level.

Chimps aren’t that cute as you think. They could be extremely violent for humans and each other.

Chimps can kill other chimp just for some food or sex.

We, humans, are civilized. We kill each other for oil. :p

Chimps aren’t that cute as you think. They could be extremely violent for humans and each other.

Chimps can kill other chimp just for some food or sex.

Yes, but the chimps are honest about it. Humans do the same shit all the time but mask their crimes behind various isms.

Yes, but the chimps are honest about it. Humans do the same shit all the time but mask their crimes behind various isms.

Heh and that is what having higher brain functions does huh!

Apparently she could. She was tested by professionals.


Unless there has been recent changes; testing of Koko is limited at best. Dr. Patterson will not let people test Koko unless she is present and Dr. Patterson interprets responses.

I admit I am out of date on Koko because of some questionable (IMHO) actions and declarations by Dr. Patterson.

I find Kanzi and Washo more interesting ;)

Chimps aren’t that cute as you think. They could be extremely violent for humans and each other.


Never held a youngster eh?

Violence is a matter of definition. What people would call violence is simply the male asserting his right as an alpha.

Chimps can kill other chimp just for some food or sex.

Killing over food? I have not heard of an incident where a chimp killed another because one had something it wanted.

Killings in a group are not common.

Killing over sex? There are cases were it could be argued but doubtful. In the social setting it's rather hard to do. If the alpha started killing challengers, he would not last long as the others would band together and overthrow him.

We, humans, are civilized. We kill each other for oil. :p

True and yet you don't find chimps screwing each other over for a percentage.

I like chimps and apes. I would hate to see their morality slip down to human level.

Chimps are apes. ;)

Besides testing, Koko can’t even solve small, easy human oriented things, just ‘cause it is a gorilla!


:confused: Eh? Problem solving is not unique to humans.

Is she aware she is captured?
She was born in captivity. San Francisco Zoo in fact. I remember her father. Grand old silverback by the name of Bwana.

Is she having a higher morality as us humans?
We humans argue over morality all the time. How is this a measure where one views their morality superior to others?

Can it be religious or not?
Eh? Religion is no mark of intelligence.

Is she having a cosmology?
How is this a measurement?

Is she understanding the concept of money?
Apes understand barter really well.

Is she obeying the law? (No, it's not, I believe she regularly is taking hooters... :p)
Apes understand rules quite well. If she was in a group, she would be following the alpha.

Does she understand the concept future?

Well most borderliners and morons understand all these things…


What you fail to understand is if you define the system of measurement then of course you are superior.

Do you know all the Eskimo words for snow? What about the Masai words concerning cattle? Hmmm then maybe you are not that smart.

Such issues involve the environment and need to exist in that environment.

The fact they may not be able to quote Plato hardly defines them as stupid.

Unless there has been recent changes; testing of Koko is limited at best. Dr. Patterson will not let people test Koko unless she is present and Dr. Patterson interprets responses.

I admit I am out of date on Koko because of some questionable (IMHO) actions and declarations by Dr. Patterson.

I find Kanzi and Washo more interesting ;)
Yeah, I'm trying to leave some of the scientific "politics" out of this. Koko has been tested by professionals, that much is true. No matter how many questions I might have about actual methodology on the part of the researchers who study Koko, I still trust what they have to say a whole lot more than some random yahoo on the internet who doesn't even seem to grasp the concept of standard deviation. :D

I'm also sort of accepting some concepts for the sake of argument. Personally, I think IQ is generally a pretty lousy measure of functional intelligence. But IF we accept it as our measure for the sake of argument, and IF we assume that the numbers being given for Koko's IQ aren't complete and utter fabrications, THEN some interesting arguments come in to play regarding legal status and mental competence.

Never held a youngster eh?

Violence is a matter of definition. What people would call violence is simply the male asserting his right as an alpha.

Killing over food? I have not heard of an incident where a chimp killed another because one had something it wanted.

Killings in a group are not common.

Killing over sex? There are cases were it could be argued but doubtful. In the social setting it's rather hard to do. If the alpha started killing challengers, he would not last long as the others would band together and overthrow him.

True and yet you don't find chimps screwing each other over for a percentage.


Regarding Chimpanzee violence, it's not so easily explained anymore, nor is it just the males:

Infanticide is known to occur in many primate species, but is generally thought of as a male trait. An exception in the realm of chimpanzee behavior was famously noted in the 1970s by Jane Goodall in her observations of Passion and Pom, a mother-daughter duo who cooperated in the killing and cannibalization of at least two infant offspring of other females. In the absence of significant additional evidence for such behavior among female chimpanzees, speculation had been that female-led infanticide represented pathological behavior, or was a means of obtaining nutritional advantage under some circumstances.

As the result of new field work involving the Sonso chimpanzee community in Budongo Forest in Uganda, the St. Andrews researchers now report instances of three female-led infanticidal attacks. Alerted to the killings by sounds of chimpanzee screams, the researchers directly observed one infanticide, and found strong circumstantial evidence for two others. Evidence suggested that in two of the cases, the killings were perpetrated by groups of resident females against "stranger" females from outside the resident group. Infants were taken from the mothers, who were injured in at least two of the attacks; in at least one case, adult males in the area exhibited displaying behavior, with one old male unsuccessfully attempting to separate the females.

The authors point out that these new observations indicate that such female-led infanticides are neither the result of isolated, pathological behaviors nor the by-product of male aggression, but instead appear to represent part of the female behavior repertoire in chimpanzees.

What drives the behavior is not yet clear, but may stem from demographic shifts that alter sex ratios and put increased pressure on females competing for foraging areas. In their report, the authors note that the Sonso community had experienced a significant population increase in the ten years prior to the infanticide observations (42 individuals in 1996 to 75 in 2006), and that there had been an influx of at least 13 females with dependent offspring since 2001. The population changes resulted in a highly skewed male:female sex ratio of 1:3, with relatively few males available to increase the home range.

According to the authors, the new findings indicate that although low-level aggression between female chimpanzees is more commonly seen, the observed instances of infanticide indicate that deadly aggression is not a gender-specific trait in this species.
link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514121651.htm) ScienceDaily (May 14, 2007)
*boldings by me

Regarding Chimpanzee violence, it's not so easily explained anymore, nor is it just the males:

It's still primarily males. Granted I have left out infantcide as it's not always a guaranteed outcome. Be it the females form and alliance, etc..

Infanticide is known to occur in many primate species, but is generally thought of as a male trait. An exception in the realm of chimpanzee behavior was famously noted in the 1970s by Jane Goodall in her observations of Passion and Pom, a mother-daughter duo who cooperated in the killing and cannibalization of at least two infant offspring of other females. In the absence of significant additional evidence for such behavior among female chimpanzees, speculation had been that female-led infanticide represented pathological behavior, or was a means of obtaining nutritional advantage under some circumstances.


The incidents around Passion and Pom were never truly understood. Even Dr. Goodall admitted it and she even explained she was worried when Passion(or was it Pom as I just blanked) became pregnant. When she gave birth the killings stopped.

As the result of new field work involving the Sonso chimpanzee community in Budongo Forest in Uganda, *snip*

Now Bundongo I had heard about but had not read the paper. Thanks for the number as I will run it down.....

I'm sure if a human was taught the way the pigeons were taught, they could also perform well. These tests just atke random humans and say "Here, find what's wrong."


Pigeons are taught? This I gotta see.
Or were you just utterly failing to see my point?

A good source for the politics is Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner ape both by Franz De Waal

http://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3674049-8072943?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193126795&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Frans-Waal/dp/B000GUJHJO/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-3674049-8072943?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193126795&sr=1-2

Interesting. I'll have to look for those.

Pigeons are taught? This I gotta see.
Or were you just utterly failing to see my point?

They don't just grab a pigeon and say "Here, find patterns."

Pigeons are taught? This I gotta see.
Come by my lab. We use chickens at the moment, but the methods we use to teach them are basically the same that the pigeon people use.

We're not working on pattern recognition, though.

without reading the thread:

No I don't think they (chimps, assuming they can talk and can read and are moral) should be given the same rights as humans (like voting, fair trial, marrying etc.) this of course doesn't mean we shouldn't respect their lives and try to treat them as humanely as possible. (as with most other animals btw)

without reading the thread:

No I don't think they (chimps, assuming they can talk and can read and are moral) should be given the same rights as humans (like voting, fair trial, marrying etc.) this of course doesn't mean we shouldn't respect their lives and try to treat them as humanely as possible. (as with most other animals btw)

What is with you Belgians and viewing humans as superior when the science shows that we are almost, if not, equal.

What is with you Belgians and viewing humans as superior when the science shows that we are almost, if not, equal.

Well, maybe you feel close like an animal, I'm not.

I certainly think we, humans, are superior.

We are on top of the food chain and we are not the strongest, quickest, etc... We have something 'more' : a big brain.

I think your confusing animals fighting with each other with making war, and the difference is massive. Humans and Ants organize themselves into mass populations and collectively act to kill other 'nations', that's alot different than a few birds fightings or whatever.

Chimpanzees actively and systematically eliminate other tribes of chimps in order to take over more territory and therefore more resources. Basically the same thing most human wars have been about. Differences: Smaller groups, lack of sophisticated weapons, no 'rules of war.'

This should not be confused with squabbles for dominance that occur within a single tribe.

Chimpanzees actively and systematically eliminate other tribes of chimps in order to take over more territory and therefore more resources. Basically the same thing most human wars have been about. Differences: Smaller groups, lack of sophisticated weapons, no 'rules of war.'

This should not be confused with squabbles for dominance that occur within a single tribe.

In the matter of the Gombe war reported by Dr. Goodall; the winning group did not wipe out the splinter group. What she noticed was the fact they would go out on "missions" looking for specific individuals. They eliminated the chimps that would make the splinter group last.

Human rights do not exist in some mystical realm of ideas. Human rights are derived solely from the social contract - a group of humans get together and decide to behave towards each other in certain ways because they want others to behave towards them in those ways (or for whatever other reason).

Since human rights are a product of human society, they cannot be extended to any entities, intelligent or not, who are not part of human society. Such entities may be granted some privileges and protections, however.

So, should non-human animals have rights? No. Should they be protected from unnecessary harm? Yes. But the keyword there is "unnecessary." I see nothing wrong with harming animals if it benefits mankind.

So, should non-human animals have rights? No. Should they be protected from unnecessary harm? Yes. But the keyword there is "unnecessary." I see nothing wrong with harming animals if it benefits mankind.

You have a contradiction if not a self serving argument.

How do you protect them from unnecessary harm when we are slowly wiping them out by destroying their habitats?

Benefit to mankind can justify about everything.

DDT was a benefit to mankind. Lead based paint. So was asbestos at one point.....

In the matter of the Gombe war reported by Dr. Goodall; the winning group did not wipe out the splinter group. What she noticed was the fact they would go out on "missions" looking for specific individuals. They eliminated the chimps that would make the splinter group last.

You must be more familiar with it than I. Still, this points to strategy and rudimentary planning on their part.

In a human war we do not usually wipe out the entire population of a nation. We destroy the portions capable of stopping us from taking control of that nation. Or if the nation is a perceived threat, the portions that make it so.

We just have larger populations and more sophisticated tactics and weaponry.

You have a contradiction if not a self serving argument.

How do you protect them from unnecessary harm when we are slowly wiping them out by destroying their habitats?
We stop destroying their habitats.

I do regard myself as an environmentalist - I just believe that protecting the environment is in mankind's own interest (and should be pursued for precisely that reason).

Benefit to mankind can justify about everything.
No, it can't. Either something is good for mankind or it isn't. Screwing up the Earth's climate, for example, is clearly not in mankind's long-term interest.

People can make bad judgements - thinking that something will benefit mankind when in fact it won't - but in such situations they would simply be wrong.

DDT was a benefit to mankind. Lead based paint. So was asbestos at one point.....
No, benefit to mankind does not change based on opinion. It is objective. In the past, people thought DDT was a benefit to mankind, but they were proven wrong. DDT itself never changed. Its harmful effects never changed. Only opinions changed - from incorrect to correct.

They don't just grab a pigeon and say "Here, find patterns."

Are you suggesting that's what they do with humans?

Anyway, yes you were missing my point - trying to quantify intelligence is fraught with problems and intelligence tests are, at best, arbitrary. Hence there is a test which puts pigeons way ahead of humans. Okay, I should have made that clearer.

What is with you Belgians and viewing humans as superior when the science shows that we are almost, if not, equal.

I don't really feel superior to chimps, I just don't see the benefit in giving the the right to education or to vote etc. why don't we just let them alone and try to preserve their habitat so that they can continue to live like they have lived for ages?

Humans shouldn't lower themselves to any animal, nor should we raise any animal to human status. The fact that they can do some of the things we can (albiet at a limited capacity) is no reason to include them in our society, give them rights or really even treat them differently. This is a dangerous line of thought and only fuels the arguments of eco-terrorists while trying to make humans feel guilty for our natural superiority.

Humans shouldn't lower themselves to any animal, nor should we raise any animal to human status. The fact that they can do some of the things we can (albiet at a limited capacity) is no reason to include them in our society, give them rights or really even treat them differently. This is a dangerous line of thought and only fuels the arguments of eco-terrorists while trying to make humans feel guilty for our natural superiority.

Why is it dangerous?

Why is it dangerous?

Never saw Planet of the Apes ? :)

Humans shouldn't lower themselves to any animal, nor should we raise any animal to human status. The fact that they can do some of the things we can (albiet at a limited capacity) is no reason to include them in our society, give them rights or really even treat them differently. This is a dangerous line of thought and only fuels the arguments of eco-terrorists while trying to make humans feel guilty for our natural superiority.

The real eco-terrorists are those who are destroying the planet. Not those trying to stop the destruction of the planet.

Never saw Planet of the Apes ? :)

Umm only the musical....

'I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-A to chimpan-Z.
No you'll never make a monkey out of me!
Oh my god, I was wrong.
It was Earth all along.
You finally made a monkey
Yes, we finally made a monkey
Yes, you finally made a monkey out of me!
I love you Dr. Zaius.!'

The real eco-terrorists are those who are destroying the planet. Not those trying to stop the destruction of the planet.

Tell that to the CIA, who lists the organizations known as the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as two of the most dangerous terrorist groups operating in America, whos attacks are second only to Al Qaida and Hamas in property damage and loss of life.

Tell that to the CIA, who lists the organizations known as the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as two of the most dangerous terrorist groups operating in America, whos attacks are second only to Al Qaida and Hamas in property damage and loss of life.

Ahhh you are there huh! So I repeat, Why is it dangerous?

Tell that to the CIA, who lists the organizations known as the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as two of the most dangerous terrorist groups operating in America, whos attacks are second only to Al Qaida and Hamas in property damage and loss of life.

Ha.

And the loss of life done by logging companies, mining operations, etc? Al Qaida has nothing on them.

Animal life is nothing compared to human life. If we do not put ourselves over beasts as we have always done, we are lost. Survival, science, progress, development, population growth and high fashion all rely on animals. These aspects of our society, with the exception of high fashion, are vital to our society so the loss of bestial life is irrelevant.

Animal life is nothing compared to human life. If we do not put ourselves over beasts as we have always done, we are lost. Survival, science, progress, development, population growth and high fashion all rely on animals. These aspects of our society, with the exception of high fashion, are vital to our society so the loss of bestial life is irrelevant.

Complete and utter bullshit.

So as long as you get more goodies for cheap it doesn't matter if a species goes extinct? It doesn't matter to you that species after species are being driven to extinction? That the majority of rivers are polluted? That the air is polluted?

Give me a fucking break.

Humans are animals too, you know.

We are better animals. It isn't about "goodies", its about medicine and homes. I'm not saying we force extinctions or even that we disregard some measures of conservation, especially in the rainforests.

Tell that to the CIA, who lists the organizations known as the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as two of the most dangerous terrorist groups operating in America, whos attacks are second only to Al Qaida and Hamas in property damage and loss of life.

ELF was a great movie.

Seriously now. Do post proof of murder by ELF and ALF.

ELF was a great movie.

Seriously now. Do post proof of murder by ELF and ALF.

And Alf was a mediocre TV show. I always remembered it as being really funny, but I watched a couple of episodes recently and was extremely underwhelmed.

As "only animals" the only species humans owe ANYTHING to the survival of is our own. Why are you all so blind to that fact?

As "only animals" the only species humans owe ANYTHING to the survival of is our own. Why are you all so blind to that fact?

Umm we have these higher reasoning skills, and after years of study, and thinking and reasoning we can see this thing where each life form on the planet is directly or indirectly dependent on other life forms.

So this means that for the continued survival of our own species, we'd best look after those others that we depend on.

I mean can you imagine a world with no cows!

And Alf was a mediocre TV show. I always remembered it as being really funny, but I watched a couple of episodes recently and was extremely underwhelmed.

I get the same thing with Blake's 7, I loved it as a kid.

Not possible. Only the human is capable. Such a bad question. It isnt possible end of story.

Not possible. Only the human is capable. Such a bad question. It isnt possible end of story.

If. The very first word of the question was if, so look at it as a hypothetical situation, regard it as more a question on morality, than a question on what is or isn't possible.

What is the moral thing to do in this hypothetical situation?

So this means that for the continued survival of our own species, we'd best look after those others that we depend on.

I mean can you imagine a world with no cows!

I'm well aware of that. This doesn't take into account the people saying that we should not eat the cows & should give them rights that many humans in the world don't even have.

Savvy? ;)

If we "give great apes the same rights as the mentally challenged" then wouldn't that make the mentally-challenged humans second-class citizens?

If we "give great apes the same rights as the mentally challenged" then wouldn't that make the mentally-challenged humans second-class citizens?

Well they basically are since we have laws in place that are supposed to protect them(ie entering legal contracts, etc.).

As "only animals" the only species humans owe ANYTHING to the survival of is our own. Why are you all so blind to that fact?

I'm sure all those bacteria in our gut that are the only reason we can even live would say differently, if they could speak. Or read. Or think. Or do anything besides help us live.

Well, maybe you feel close like an animal, I'm not.

I certainly think we, humans, are superior.

We are on top of the food chain and we are not the strongest, quickest, etc... We have something 'more' : a big brain.

SO I'm guessing you also think the lighter your skin, the smarter you are. Also a big brain doesn't make you smarter. Smarter people actually have smaller brains than average, but are much more dense.

Are you suggesting that's what they do with humans?

Anyway, yes you were missing my point - trying to quantify intelligence is fraught with problems and intelligence tests are, at best, arbitrary. Hence there is a test which puts pigeons way ahead of humans. Okay, I should have made that clearer.

They can teach pigeons to recognize patterns just like they can teach humans. The pigeons don't magically see patterns a lot better. They have to be trained.

Humans shouldn't lower themselves to any animal, nor should we raise any animal to human status. The fact that they can do some of the things we can (albiet at a limited capacity) is no reason to include them in our society, give them rights or really even treat them differently. This is a dangerous line of thought and only fuels the arguments of eco-terrorists while trying to make humans feel guilty for our natural superiority.

Animal life is nothing compared to human life. If we do not put ourselves over beasts as we have always done, we are lost. Survival, science, progress, development, population growth and high fashion all rely on animals. These aspects of our society, with the exception of high fashion, are vital to our society so the loss of bestial life is irrelevant.

Troll. We are equals to primates at least. A primate life is equal to a human life, at least.

SO I'm guessing you also think the lighter your skin, the smarter you are. Also a big brain doesn't make you smarter. Smarter people actually have smaller brains than average, but are much more dense.



So 'cause I don't put animals and humans on the same line, I'm a racist? :)

A big brain certainly helps. Do you have a link about 'smart' people that have a small brain on average, but that it is more dense... .? :)
Btw I was not compairing the size of brains between humans, but human brain size vs. animal brain size. Else women should be in general 12% more stupid. :)

I'm always wondering who or what is deciding who is smart and who is not. :)

A big brain certainly helps and so are other criteria, like the amount of neurons, frontal gray and white matter and others.

When comparing different species brain size does present a correlation with intelligence. For example the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence

Troll. We are equals to primates at least. A primate life is equal to a human life, at least.

That's why countless primates are used in animal testing just to make sure that medicines would work for us humans.

Look, I like animals a lot, but they are not on the same line.

It is a kind of magical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking) assuming that primates are equal to humans.

I'm well aware of that. This doesn't take into account the people saying that we should not eat the cows & should give them rights that many humans in the world don't even have.

Savvy? ;)

That is not what you said though is it. You said the only animal we owe ANYTHING to is our selves.

So bearing that in mind your answer to me, makes no sense at all. Savvy?

If we "give great apes the same rights as the mentally challenged" then wouldn't that make the mentally-challenged humans second-class citizens?

I don't think the issue is 'the same rights' after all even a great ape is not a human. But rights protected under law that each thinking feeling entity should enjoy I see no problem with.

If for example it could be proved beyond any doubt that dolphins had a rich and varied society with a developed language. If if could be shown that they grieve the death of loved ones, had skills of reasoning were capable of learning, and passing on teachings. Then would it not be morally reprehensible not to have the killing of dolphins prohibited under law as the killing of humans is?

Wouldn't it regarded as species-ist to proclaim, it is fine to murder this or that sentient species, but not our own?

They can teach pigeons to recognize patterns just like they can teach humans. The pigeons don't magically see patterns a lot better. They have to be trained.

No, not by magic, but they are a lot quicker to spot this particular type of pattern. At least, that's what the experiment seemed to suggest.

Again, I wasn't actually trying to suggest that pigeons are more intelligent than humans, just because some test seemed to show they have an advantage in a particular area.

No, not by magic, but they are a lot quicker to spot this particular type of pattern. At least, that's what the experiment seemed to suggest.

Again, I wasn't actually trying to suggest that pigeons are more intelligent than humans, just because some test seemed to show they have an advantage in a particular area.


Even some insects can outperform us for specific cognitive tasks. But indeed, that doesn't make them smarter as we are.

Humans are really on top of the food chain. That makes them winners. 'cause we are NOT the strongest, NOT the fastest ones and we don't have the best senses, etc...

But we have the best brain. That's why we can eat/kill what we want.
It's maybe ethical not nice, but so be it.

If another being would outperform us, it would kill us. And the last few human species can be watched in a zoo. Maybe, they will have f*ck plans to release us, humans, back into the wild. :)

You bring up a few interesting points here(well I think so anyway)

Even some insects can outperform us for specific cognitive tasks. But indeed, that doesn't make them smarter as we are.

Which makes me think, so how do we measure intelligence? What does it mean to say that we are more intelligent that apes, or that he is more intelligent than me?


Humans are really on top of the food chain. That makes them winners. 'cause we are NOT the strongest, NOT the fastest ones and we don't have the best senses, etc...

But we have the best brain. That's why we can eat/kill what we want.
It's maybe ethical not nice, but so be it.

Would you agree then that is is morally correct that an alien species invading earth has the right to eat/kill us if they have a higher intelligence?


If another being would outperform us, it would kill us. And the last few human species can be watched in a zoo. Maybe, they will have f*ck plans to release us, humans, back into the wild. :)

Can you say that this is sure for certain? With greater intelligence comes greater understanding, reasoning and morality, and greater moral responsibility, yes or no?

You bring up a few interesting points here(well I think so anyway)



Which makes me think, so how do we measure intelligence? What does it mean to say that we are more intelligent that apes, or that he is more intelligent than me?

First, one should define intelligence. Which is very hard.

Having a big memory?
Being enormous creative?
Solving the most difficult math problems?
Being the best playboy around?
Touching people by playing piano?
Motivate an entire country by an overwhelming speech?
Scoring 30 goals in the Champions League?

Or a combination?

We can do more with our brain than apes. I'm rather sure we are smarter than apes.


Would you agree then that is is morally correct that an alien species invading earth has the right to eat/kill us if they have a higher intelligence?

They don't have to be smarter. They can be dumber as we are and still more fit to rule us. It depends about the condition.
I will not like the idea of being eaten, but if a predator is better than us... I don't see any problems with morality.


Can you say that this is sure for certain? With greater intelligence comes greater understanding, reasoning and morality, and greater moral responsibility, yes or no?

I'm quite sure if such alien is an omnivore or carnivore and it finds us delicious that it will hunt us down.

If we are not delicious then it could attack us just for territorial or food reasons.

Or maybe it’s just looking at us, as we do to ants. I killed ants, did you?

People are present times smarter than 2000 years ago. Still we hunt & eat animals. Even animals that are close to us: like apes, dogs and (for the English) horses.

Well they basically are since we have laws in place that are supposed to protect them(ie entering legal contracts, etc.).

Really? I tried to find some and I couldn't find any. Still, I would assume that their vote would be worth the same as any other person's.

I don't think the issue is 'the same rights' after all even a great ape is not a human. But rights protected under law that each thinking feeling entity should enjoy I see no problem with.

If for example it could be proved beyond any doubt that dolphins had a rich and varied society with a developed language. If if could be shown that they grieve the death of loved ones, had skills of reasoning were capable of learning, and passing on teachings. Then would it not be morally reprehensible not to have the killing of dolphins prohibited under law as the killing of humans is?

Wouldn't it regarded as species-ist to proclaim, it is fine to murder this or that sentient species, but not our own?

I keep on thinking about Hitchhikers. LOL

Well, then we we have to place constraints on what is species-ist. Would it be any animal species, or simply one of a "sentient" species. Also, what would be the internetional responnse to this? Would these creatures be able to enter into diplomatic relations woth humans? Would they enter defensive treaties? Would their organized nation join the United Nations?

First, one should define intelligence. Which is very hard.

Having a big memory?
Being enormous creative?
Solving the most difficult math problems?
Being the best playboy around?
Touching people by playing piano?
Motivate an entire country by an overwhelming speech?
Scoring 30 goals in the Champions League?

Or a combination?

We can do more with our brain than apes. I'm rather sure we are smarter than apes.




They don't have to be smarter. They can be dumber as we are and still more fit to rule us. It depends about the condition.
I will not like the idea of being eaten, but if a predator is better than us... I don't see any problems with morality.




I'm quite sure if such alien is an omnivore or carnivore and it finds us delicious that it will hunt us down.

If we are not delicious then it could attack us just for territorial or food reasons.

Or maybe it’s just looking at us, as we do to ants. I killed ants, did you?

People are present times smarter than 2000 years ago. Still we hunt & eat animals. Even animals that are close to us: like apes, dogs and (for the English) horses.

I don't think you have understood my gist at all.

It all boils down to this question. The higher intelligence you have (however that is measured?) the more capable of reasoning and logical thought you are. The more capable of logical thought you are, then the more moral questions you have to answer.

So as a being of higher order thought, and thus higher moral principles, is it morally correct to assume power over those that are intellectually weaker, but exhibit a high degree of sentience Or is it morally reprehensible to treat other sentient, feeling, beings as our property?

The example I give of higher order aliens invading earth, is meant to elicit emotional feelings. If you would feel aggrieved at being hunted and treated as food or property, then isn't it morally correct to NOT treat those species that exhibit the same feelings of grief and lose, in a similar manor?

In short, if an animal could be shown to grieve for it's dead, then shouldn't we as higher order beings treat that species with due consideration?

Really? I tried to find some and I couldn't find any. Still, I would assume that their vote would be worth the same as any other person's.


I have to admit contract law is not one of my areas. I should have prefaced it with something like "as I understand it"

As I understand it ;) a person of diminished mental capacity can not enter into legally binding contract.

I have to admit contract law is not one of my areas. I should have prefaced it with something like "as I understand it"

As I understand it ;) a person of diminished mental capacity can not enter into legally binding contract.

Law is not one of my capacities, but still. You need to file several contracts to run for President, and George W. Bush has done that twice

So 'cause I don't put animals and humans on the same line, I'm a racist? :)
Yes, sir.

A big brain certainly helps. Do you have a link about 'smart' people that have a small brain on average, but that it is more dense... .? :)
Btw I was not compairing the size of brains between humans, but human brain size vs. animal brain size. Else women should be in general 12% more stupid. :)
Sorry, it's one of those things you find in a magazine trivia section that might not end up being true...

I'm always wondering who or what is deciding who is smart and who is not. :)

A big brain certainly helps and so are other criteria, like the amount of neurons, frontal gray and white matter and others.

When comparing different species brain size does present a correlation with intelligence. For example the ratio of brain weight to body weight for fish is 1:5000; for reptiles it is about 1:1500; for birds, 1:220; for most mammals, 1:180, and for humans, 1:50.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence
Again, elephants have a bigger brain than us...

That's why countless primates are used in animal testing just to make sure that medicines would work for us humans.

Look, I like animals a lot, but they are not on the same line.

It is a kind of magical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking) assuming that primates are equal to humans.

Which is why animal testing is immoral and cruel. We should only test on ourselves and if we don't want to test it, then we don't need it. We have prisoners who can be used as test populations. Do we really need to rub mascara in rabbit eyes...

We are animals and we are equal to many of them.

No, not by magic, but they are a lot quicker to spot this particular type of pattern. At least, that's what the experiment seemed to suggest.

Again, I wasn't actually trying to suggest that pigeons are more intelligent than humans, just because some test seemed to show they have an advantage in a particular area.

Still doesn't mean anything. They can be taught to recognize patterns just as we can.

Even some insects can outperform us for specific cognitive tasks. But indeed, that doesn't make them smarter as we are.

Humans are really on top of the food chain. That makes them winners. 'cause we are NOT the strongest, NOT the fastest ones and we don't have the best senses, etc...
Uh...no. We don't eat everything. We are on top of A food chain, but not THE food chain. We also have been eaten by lions, so...

But we have the best brain. That's why we can eat/kill what we want.
It's maybe ethical not nice, but so be it.
There's absolutely no proof we have the best brain. We are the most adaptable, but may still have a weaker brain than, say dolphins, as referenced in one of the best novel series of all time.

We can do more with our brain than apes. I'm rather sure we are smarter than apes.
We are apes.

In short, if an animal could be shown to grieve for it's dead, then shouldn't we as higher order beings treat that species with due consideration?
Elephants do just that: they examine elephant bones they come across while traveling.

I'm sure all those bacteria in our gut that are the only reason we can even live would say differently, if they could speak. Or read. Or think. Or do anything besides help us live.

Perhaps they would; it doesn't change the fact that what I said was true. It's still about HUMAN survival. We wouldn't fight to keep them alive if they didn't do us some good, now would we?

That is not what you said though is it. You said the only animal we owe ANYTHING to is our selves.

So bearing that in mind your answer to me, makes no sense at all. Savvy?

Nope; what I said was this: "As 'only animals' the only species humans owe ANYTHING to the survival of is our own."

Note the "to the survival of" part of the sentence. We could indeed live without cows, but because keeping cows for food makes OUR survival easier, we continue to do so. In other words, it ain't about the cow; it's about us.

I must apologize for the way I began the sentence, though. I wrote "As 'only animals'" & should've written "If we are 'only animals...'" My bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwinasia
So 'cause I don't put animals and humans on the same line, I'm a racist?

[QUOTE]Yes, sir.

You're not eating animals, you don't wear leather or fur and you never killed a fly, isn't ? :)

Animals are not a human race, so I can't be a racist.

Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist

Quote:
A big brain certainly helps. Do you have a link about 'smart' people that have a small brain on average, but that it is more dense... .?
Btw I was not compairing the size of brains between humans, but human brain size vs. animal brain size. Else women should be in general 12% more stupid.

Sorry, it's one of those things you find in a magazine trivia section that might not end up being true

Clever of you to use the word 'might'.

But I have to disappoint you...

In 1861, Paul Broca examined 432 human brains and found that the brains of males had an average weight of 1325 grams, while the brains of females had an average weight of 1144 grams.

A 1992 study of 6325 Army personnel found that men's brains had an average volume of 1442 cm³, while the women averaged 1332 cm³. (Ankney 1992[4]). The differences are smaller but persist when adjusted for body size (Ankey, 1992).

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Again, elephants have a bigger brain than us...

And so are whales. Some whales their brain is twice the brainsize of an elephant.

Those animals are bigger as well. A brain is also used by instance to 'power' your muscles. And since those animals are bigger, have bigger and more muscles...

There are other reasons why it is that size.

You find some nice info here:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wildlife-2507/Size-elephant-brain.htm

Still they are highly intelligent, but do not match humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwinasia
That's why countless primates are used in animal testing just to make sure that medicines would work for us humans.

Look, I like animals a lot, but they are not on the same line.

It is a kind of magical thinking assuming that primates are equal to humans.

Which is why animal testing is immoral and cruel. We should only test on ourselves and if we don't want to test it, then we don't need it. We have prisoners who can be used as test populations. Do we really need to rub mascara in rabbit eyes...

We are animals and we are equal to many of them.

Using human prisoners as test devices is humane, using a f*cking rat is not? :)

You're an extremist, but I don't mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwinasia
Even some insects can outperform us for specific cognitive tasks. But indeed, that doesn't make them smarter as we are.

Humans are really on top of the food chain. That makes them winners. 'cause we are NOT the strongest, NOT the fastest ones and we don't have the best senses, etc...

Uh...no. We don't eat everything. We are on top of A food chain, but not THE food chain. We also have been eaten by lions, so...

Yes and still we are on top of the lions. Even if all lions bundled their forces to attack humanity, we would win.

I’m wondering if they performed guerrilla warfare to destroy us, together with other animals, if they would succeed.

BUT we are lucky that they are not that smart as you pretend, isn't? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwinasia
We can do more with our brain than apes. I'm rather sure we are smarter than apes.

We are apes.

Hello Koko, I'm a human. :)

You're not eating animals, you don't wear leather or fur and you never killed a fly, isn't ? :)
Eating or using another species doesn't make you better.

Animals are not a human race, so I can't be a racist.
You are racist against another race, actually several: chimps, gorillas, etc...

And so are whales. Some whales their brain is twice the brainsize of an elephant.

Those animals are bigger as well. A brain is also used by instance to 'power' your muscles. And since those animals are bigger, have bigger and more muscles...

There are other reasons why it is that size.

You find some nice info here:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wildlife-2507/Size-elephant-brain.htm

Still they are highly intelligent, but do not match humans.
There is no proof they do not match humans.


Using human prisoners as test devices is humane, using a f*cking rat is not? :)
Absolutely. And the results actually have a good accuracy rate.

Yes and still we are on top of the lions. Even if all lions bundled their forces to attack humanity, we would win.
Only because we outnumber them. Try taking an equal number of lions and humans and set them against each other and see what happens.

I’m wondering if they performed guerrilla warfare to destroy us, together with other animals, if they would succeed.
'twould make an interesting novel/movie/...

BUT we are lucky that they are not that smart as you pretend, isn't? :)
Again, you don't know how smart they are. They could be extremely smart. So smart that they know better than to adopt our technology.


Hello Koko, I'm a human. :)
Humans are apes, along with chimps, apes, and something else.

Humans are smarter than any other animal. But it is not sheer brainpower that makes us better. It is USE of that power that makes us superior. Do dolphins or whales have civilization? Religion? Technology? Medicine? No, those are human things. Yes other animals make tools to gather food. Do other animals make tools to make art? Or to make better tools? No.

Humans are smarter than any other animal.
There is no proof of that.

Do dolphins or whales have civilization?
There are known chimp tribes and we just don't know enough to say they don't. We don't see or interact with dolphins, let alone communicate with them much.

Religion?
That's a sign of intelligence? :rolleyes:

Technology?
Tools.

Medicine?
I can't give any sources, but I'm quite sure even birds no know to relieve some aches and pains with certain fruits, seeds, or leaves.

No, those are human things. Yes other animals make tools to gather food. Do other animals make tools to make art? Or to make better tools? No.
Wth was that elephant's name that made art? She painted red, orange, and yellow strokes after seeing a fire truck.

Do they need better tools?

Sel, I would point out that according to the Wiki article, an incredibly smart bonobo can barely manage a functional if-then conditional: If you do a war dance, then you should do it in another room because it upsets the other members of the troop. He certainly couldn't say it as such, and its doubtful that he can even understand what cause-effect relations are in the abstract. That puts his level of logical analysis about that of a 6-month old human child, and leaps and bounds behind even a 2-year old. Given that fact, in what way can you not assume that humans are smarter, fantastically so, than chimps.

He can point to symbols given the proper stimulus. So can a pocket calculator. Neither is human.