NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/chimpanzees-not.html

""They are a people. Non-human, but definitely persons," said Deborah Fouts, co-director of the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute. "They haven't built a rocket ship to the moon. But we're not that different."

True. They even have their own cultures, just as humans have their cultures.

"a growing number of scientists and ethicists who believe that chimpanzees — as well as orangutans, bonobos and gorillas, a group colloquially known as great apes — ought to be considered people."

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

quit true. They can even do the same kind of basic math that most humans on the planet are capable of. Adding and subtracting.

Some even suggest that chimpanzees and other great apes should be granted human rights.[QUOTE]

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

"But Fouts, who has trained her chimpanzees to use sign language, disagrees. "They do remember the past. When people come that they haven't seen in many years, they use their name signs," she said. Taglialatela echoed Fouts. "I don't know if they think about what they want to be when they grow up," he said, "but they understand the concept that something will happen later."

Taglialatela has shown that chimpanzees utilize parts of their brain similar to our own Broca's and Wernicke's areas, which in humans are considered central to speech production and processing. When communicating, chimpanzees choose circumstance-appropriate forms: gesturing by hand to someone who looks at them, or calling out to someone who looks away.

"We're seeing this rich communicative repertoire. It's not simply, 'I see a piece of food and make some emotional sound,'" he said. "They're using different perspectives to communicate."

Researchers have also found that chimps use hand gestures that vary according to context. The same gesture can be used for purposes as diverse as requesting sex or reconciling after a fight, a linguistic subtlety that suggests a capacity for high-level abstraction.

And Fouts, who said that chimpanzees "feel pain and anger and love and affection and the kinds of feelings we feel," said that her sign language-trained chimpanzees can indeed inquire about the well-being of their handlers.

They can talk to you. If you know sign language. They have their own unique cultures depending on where in the world they live. Just like homo sapiens.
They make tools just like homo sapiens.
They build homes in their natural environs just like homo sapiens.
They are capable of adding and subtracting, just like homo sapiens.
They can remember friends just like homo sapiens.
They are able to tell the difference between right and wrong just like homo sapiens.
They can make tools, like homo sapiens.
They even have compassion and they can hello. They can tell you if they are horny or if they are mad at you.

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are. That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.
That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are.

Except that not everything about them is the same as us. That's a bullshit claim.

That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.

They haven't.

That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.

But it's a move that hasn't been made, and never will. That would make them more human than Australopithecus, which they're not.

A planet where apes evolved from men?!

Wait...Holy fuck, is that monkey waving at us? Oh, shit, It understood us! Maybe it's some kind of supermonkey. What if there's more supermonkeys up at in a lab somewhere? What if they're creating an army of them? Holy shit. It must be a conspiracy like in the X-Files... *Roswell* style! This little monkey could be the fuckin' damn dirty ape responsible for the fall of the human race. In this world gone mad, we won't spank the monkey- the monkey will spank us. And after the fall of man, these monkey fucks'll start wearing our clothes and rebuilding the world in their image. Oh and only those as super smart as me will be left alive to bitterly cry - *you maniacs*! Damn yous! Goddamn yous all to hell!

On the other hand, does this mean we can make Soylent Green out of monkeys, too?

wolves do also. virtually all mammals, and quite a few reptiles, birds and fish, most likely are also. all are people too, in the sense of experiencing their existence and having emotions. really the only thing objectively distinguishing humans from other species is the degree of their drive to express themselves creatively and the resultant so completely surrounding themselves with their artifacts as to imagine themselves elsewise.

primates generally display more creative and near creative behavior then other species, and i say generally because even there there are exceptional nonprimates as well. none of course come near the degree humans engage in it.

whether one equates this with 'person-ness' is perhaps a matter of personal perspective, but humanity's collective ego IS just as absurd and ridiculous as that of any individual member of it.

No. They are chimps, not people. Yah, they have the tools and all that stuff, but they are still chimps. It is what it is, they aren't people. If'n you want to give them legal protection, go ahead, by all means and stuff, but they are never going to be classed as people, they are just not the same thing.

That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.
That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.

No.

This is just a pretext for some sick bastard to try and have sex with them. Sadly, this is how the world is.

what is "sick" is the human species' collective egocentrism. it is simply and entirely inexcusable.

on many absolutely equivalent basis, one might very well ask, and conclude to reject, are humans people?

A planet where apes evolved from men?!

*Snips*
Do you know of the C.L.I.T commander?

This is just a pretext for some sick bastard to try and have sex with them. Sadly, this is how the world is.

Well it'd still be a different species, even if it were the same genus (and I'd still consider Pan distinct enough from Homo, especially considering differences in genetic history). Reclassifying to the same genus wouldn't really do that much for them either in a legal sense.

Are bestiality laws governed by species or by personhood? Would having sex with a Neanderthal be considered bestiality?

i think 'bestiality' is a completely irrelevant side issue from whether emotion and awareness and diversity of individual personality, determine personhood, more so then self serving species chauvinism.

Well it'd still be a different species, even if it were the same genus (and I'd still consider Pan distinct enough from Homo, especially considering differences in genetic history). Reclassifying to the same genus wouldn't really do that much for them either in a legal sense.

I would guess that the real argument about this would come down to evolutionary biology. At any rate it has nothing to do with how much they are like 'little people', which is what the OP is implying.

Are bestiality laws governed by species or by personhood? Would having sex with a Neanderthal be considered bestiality?

Camel's nose in the tent my friend. I am just telling you what they are up to and their real motives.

i think 'bestiality' is a completely irrelevant side issue from whether emotion and awareness and diversity of individual personality, determine personhood, more so then self serving species chauvinism.

Yes, well however you may view our furry friends, their sparkling wit and ability to come up with a limited repertoire of cute tricks doesn't define personhood. Complete vegetables are classed as people whereas my cat, which certainly outperforms the late Terry Schiavo in the personality and brains department, does not.

It is what it is.

what is "sick" is the human species' collective egocentrism. it is simply and entirely inexcusable.

on many absolutely equivalent basis, one might very well ask, and conclude to reject, are humans people?
Well, the problem is that marking the Chimpanzee as having personhood status would probably lead to some kind of 'tiered' personhood status being developed. Whether that is a good or bad thing is in the eye of the beholder.

You could have a discussion that some humans may have non-personhood status, though that would be a contentious path for many reasons.

You're also not mentioning that most species tend to be speciest, so you'd better be a little indignant about the touch of self-centred (not to say they can't be altruistic, just a "my species/tribe/family first" deal when it comes to disseminating resources) nature of most species.

i think 'bestiality' is a completely irrelevant side issue from whether emotion and awareness and diversity of individual personality, determine personhood, more so then self serving species chauvinism.

Well... Speciesm is an easier term to use.

The only problem is where do you stop? Do you advance a whole package of personhood status to every single species in a fuzzy zone? Do you cover an entire species blanket, or do you perform it by a case-by-case basis?

I mean, yes you can try to argue the case for Pan personhood status, though you have to recognise many of those features are part of other species.

Yes, well however you may view our furry friends, their sparkling wit and ability to come up with a limited repertoire of cute tricks doesn't define personhood. Complete vegetables are classed as people whereas my cat, which certainly outperforms the late Terry Schiavo in the personality and brains department, does not.

It is what it is.
To be fair, they can learn sign language and the such, they definately fall into a fuzzy area (though not, in my opinion, enough to gain personhood).

I'd only see personhood status out of Homo Sapiens Sapiens if/when a self-sentient computer system is running. It would also be during that time that that humans being dropped from personhood status could ever develop (though I think it won't ever stop being a species-wide blanket status, considering the history of humans).

Do you know of the C.L.I.T commander?

The C.L.I.T. is an offshoot of the L.A.B.I.A. And by that, I mean of course, the Liberate Apes Before Imprisoning Apes movement

To be fair, they can learn sign language and the such, they definately fall into a fuzzy area (though not, in my opinion, enough to gain personhood).


As I said, if you all think they need some kind of legal protection, I've got no problem with that. But as far as general personhood goes, there is a bright line and I am drawing it.

True. They even have their own cultures, just as humans have their cultures.
This is true, and means that if we don't stomp on the little buggers now, soon enough we'll have to start "respecting" their culture. Which, in this case, would mean letting Bonobos have sex with us.
That is not something I am willing to let happen. Unless I was drunk or stoned, and if the bonobo was really hot.

This is just a pretext for some sick bastard to try and have sex with them. Sadly, this is how the world is.

I'd say ye'd have a job. Enraged chimps usually have to be shot, afaik, if they get loose.

But it's a move that hasn't been made, and never will. That would make them more human than Australopithecus, which they're not.The argument that's been made in favour of Homo Troglodytes is that the 2% difference in our genes would not be enough to make any biologist think of putting that species in a different genus* (Unless it's about keeping humans substantially distinct from 'Mere Animals', read, the division we have now would be there entirely to please out egos, but not signify any evolutionary relationship); consequently, were such a redesignation to occur, the australopiths would be redesignated as well.

Worth noting that the trend to see differences between humans and all other animals/ Non-Sapiens species of Homo that aren't actually there is real - assorted claims about Neanderthals fit particularly well into the scheme ('They didn't have the genes to have langua- Oh, wait, they did. But they didn't have the physiological characteristica to spea- OHSHI, they did. But their braisn were inferior to our, as they didn't have abstract thoug- Oh fuck, believe in an afterlife. BUT they still weren't as good at making tools as we were, which is why they remained on pre-modernity lev- Awww, we've incorrectly assigned finds to Homo Sapiens based entirely on the tools even though everything else was clearly Neanderthal-culture? Well, there goes this hypothesis...').

Social behaviour, tool use, and just about everything else we do has been used for the purpose of de-beastifying humans; all these attempts have failed miserably. The only exception is 'Language', which is still debated, essentially along the lines of 'Animals don't talk; only we do'. But even it has, in effect, already been shot down (I don't expect the debate to survive the next decade), since we've since identified (Primitive) grammar, determinatives, and all kinds of other linguistic intricacies in assorted animal communication systems, ranging from primates over cetaceans to birds.

In short, although I'm not presently able to verify the abovementioend claim that the 2% difference is not enough to give any animal its own distinct genus with the sole exception of humans & chimps, it strikes me as rather feasible, given the vast 'Wealth' of precedent concerning the 'Humans are Special! No really, they are! Somehow...' issue.

* Not sure if that's true. A biologist said it on TV, and I'm a tad too lazy to verify by digging into the relevant literature.

Eh...why not? Chimps are more human than estate agents, and we'd never have got in this mess if chimps were in charge of the financial markets. Their expertise in financial calculation is legendary, and the trade in bananas to enable us to pay them their massive bonuses could help stimulate the world economy, leading us all to a new era of prosperity.

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are. That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.
That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.

The Homo Troglodytes is an idiotic definition. Chimps, and other great apes, aren't member of the Homo genus.
This doesn't prevent them to be "person". A living being (or even a thing, like an AI) can be a "person" without being human. Btw, even the "person"/"non person" isn't exactly a black-or-white proposition. A cat, or a dog, are clearly more "person" than a goldfish, or an earthworm.

Person, from latin "persona", meaning "character" (in theatre). "Person" is about relationship with environment and other beings, not about genetics.

- snip -

It's not about language, tool use, or anything else. Pans is not bipedal, so its inclusion in the genus Homo should be objected to on that ground, nothing else.

Further, if pans is included in homo, then the subtribes homina and panina are eliminated, and in fact the tribe hominini would effectively become the enlarged genus. i.e. homo sapiens would be now be hominini sapiens.

Eliminating pans results in needless expansion of the genus and loss of precision in respect to the classification. Left wing rubbish.

Chimps aren't people. Attempting to define them as such just seems pointless and absurd, really. It'd open up a whole can of worms about other animals as well, especially since they're not the only ones who can use tools and have a passable ability to communicate. They ought to be treated with respect, but I don't think it'd be a step in the right direction.
Eliminating pans results in needless expansion of the genus and loss of precision in respect to the classification. Left wing rubbish.
What's "left wing" got to do with anything here?

What's "left wing" got to do with anything here?

It's clearly left wing in its impetus. Part of the "animals are people" too crap that libtards are so fond of.

It's clearly left wing in its impetus. Part of the "animals are people" too crap that libtards are so fond of.
So basically your claim is ungrounded.

Although it is the sort of thing a lot of the more bleedin' heart-types would go in for.

It's not about language, tool use, or anything else. Pans is not bipedal, so its inclusion in the genus Homo should be objected to on that ground, nothing else.Actually, they partially are - namely, when in the trees.

That aside, classification of extant species (== species whose relationships can be defined through analysis of their DNA; rather than through mere physiological similarities) is done through... Analysis of their DNA, rather than through mere comparison of physiological similarities.

Fun how you ignored the actual point of my post (The lack of genetic difference), mind you.

Left wing rubbish.Oh, sorry, I thought this could be debated on the basis of facts, not randomly throwing politics into it.

Go back to conservapedia, will you?

Actually, they partially are - namely, when in the trees.

No, they are not bipedal at all. Their pelvis is all wrong.

That aside, classification of extant species (== species whose relationships can be defined through analysis of their DNA; rather than through mere physiological similarities) is done through... Analysis of their DNA, rather than through mere comparison of physiological similarities.

Genetic similarity has nothing to do with it, that's not how it works. Pans and Homo are still distinct and therefore should be classified as such. Differences in DNA sequences are a consequence of divergent evolution, not a condition, and are not dispositive in respect of taxonomy.

And as I pointed out, it would make the classification less precise, not more and therefore is a needless enlargement. (Not to mention potentially problematic insofar as future fossils species that may be discovered).

Fun how you ignored the actual point of my post (The lack of genetic difference), mind you.


I didn't. I explained why the current classification is superior and why the inclusion of pans into homo shouldn't happen. The seeming lack of genetic difference is irrelevant for this purpose.

It's clearly left wing in its impetus. Part of the "animals are people" too crap that libtards are so fond of.

Yes, usually we bloody lefties like to include as people beings who weren't regarded as such by the good ol' right-wing silent majority. Like with those whom right-wingers liked to call niggers, j00z, greasers, wops etc. ;)

A lot of animals are very smart and have a high degree of consciousness and person-hood,
but giving them "human" rights is not the way to go.
They should indeed be respected and covered by animal rights,
but until they build something more complex,
like houses i.e, instead of just first level tools,
they do not have a sufficient depth of society to be included among intellectual sentient´s.

And Homo Troglodytes is a joke,
they belong to the Pan Family through genetics,
and the fact that our Families split of a looong time ago.

A lot of animals are very smart and have a high degree of consciousness and person-hood,
but giving them "human" rights is not the way to go.
They should indeed be respected and covered by animal rights,
but until they build something more complex,
like houses i.e, instead of just first level tools,
they do not have a sufficient depth of society to be included among intellectual sentient´s.

And Homo Troglodytes is a joke,
they belong to the Pan Family through genetics,
and the fact that our Families split of a looong time ago.

Both humans and chimpanzees belong to the same family, Hominidae. And the same subfamily, Homininae. And the same tribe, Hominini. It's the subtribes that are different. (Hominina and Panina, respectively.)

Also bolding a character in your post due to irony.

It's not about language, tool use, or anything else. Pans is not bipedal, so its inclusion in the genus Homo should be objected to on that ground, nothing else.

Further, if pans is included in homo, then the subtribes homina and panina are eliminated, and in fact the tribe hominini would effectively become the enlarged genus. i.e. homo sapiens would be now be hominini sapiens.

Please, please learn how taxonomy works. Please learn how cladistics work. As it stands your post is physically painful to read.
Let me try to explain this. Cladistics is based entirely on shared derived characters. Differences are ignored entirely. Your first paragraph is the exact opposite of how it works. Your second paragraph is, uh, there's absolutely no way I can put this in a tactful manner. I apologize. Let me try an analogy. Is it "Placozoa adhaerens"? No, it's Trichoplax adhaerens.

Please, please learn how taxonomy works. Please learn how cladistics work. As it stands your post is physically painful to read.
Let me try to explain this. Cladistics is based entirely on shared derived characters. Differences are ignored entirely. Your first paragraph is the exact opposite of how it works. Your second paragraph is, uh, there's absolutely no way I can put this in a tactful manner. I apologize. Let me try an analogy. Is it "Placozoa adhaerens"? No, it's Trichoplax adhaerens.

Are you telling me my dimly remember lessons from A'level biology are wrong. I hardly think so.

Secondly, it's not painful.

I'm open to having the higher apes granted the legal protection that I support for dolphins and whales.

However, Chimps (I will probably never adjust to 'Bonobo') are by no means Human. And they are not part of Human civilisation or society.

If for granting them legal status against lab testing and such, I'm all for it. However, I'll doubt they'll contribute much to society as a whole apart from looking hilarious in a tuxedo.

However, Chimps (I will probably never adjust to 'Bonobo')

Bonobos are a seperate subspecies, not another name for chimp as a whole.

This is just a pretext for some sick bastard to try and have sex with them. Sadly, this is how the world is.

Wasnt that how AIDS got started, lol...

Im waiting for someone to Splice the Genes and make Teenage Mutant Ninja Chimps...

-snip-
Bonobos are a seperate subspecies, not another name for chimp as a whole.

Ah, thank you for clarifying that.

Ah, thank you for clarifying that.

He's actually wrong, Bonobos are a separate species, not subspecies.

You know, I think we have already accepted chimps into the ranks of humanity. At least Americans have. Back in 2000, there was quite a bit of controversy involved to be sure, but the case reached the highest court in the land and they decided. It was a decision that many disagreed with, but since we all respect democracy in this land, we have all abided by it.

On the other hand, does this mean we can make Soylent Green out of monkeys, too?

You make a joke but one of the theories for where AIDS came from was from eating chimp meat. They have a version called SIDS and it possibly mutated.....

Except that not everything about them is the same as us. That's a bullshit claim.


Ahh but you must admit their capacity to lie, self-awarness, the practice of rudimentary politics and the ability to make war is rather startling. Nev


They haven't.

Has there been an official ruling? Still being argued the last time I looked.


But it's a move that hasn't been made, and never will. That would make them more human than Australopithecus, which they're not.

Don't forget the DNA. 98.9% the same as us.

You make a joke but one of the theories for where AIDS came from was from eating chimp meat. They have a version called SIDS and it possibly mutated.....

I wonder what chimp tastes like.

wolves do also. virtually all mammals, and quite a few reptiles, birds and fish, most likely are also. all are people too, in the sense of experiencing their existence and having emotions. really the only thing objectively distinguishing humans from other species is the degree of their drive to express themselves creatively and the resultant so completely surrounding themselves with their artifacts as to imagine themselves elsewise.


But the emotions are on a different level. For example a chimp on the Gombi had a offspring die. She carried it for 3 days and was noticed to make kind a wailing sounds. Eventually, it was time to move on and she finally left the body. But she was known to visit the spot from time to time....

primates generally display more creative and near creative behavior then other species, and i say generally because even there there are exceptional nonprimates as well. none of course come near the degree humans engage in it.


Creativity as in what? They solve puzzles and master escape artists and even paint.

whether one equates this with 'person-ness' is perhaps a matter of personal perspective, but humanity's collective ego IS just as absurd and ridiculous as that of any individual member of it.

I am not sure what you mean? Person-ness as in self-aware? Collective ego?

This is what happens when you post when you're stoned.

No. They are chimps, not people. Yah, they have the tools and all that stuff, but they are still chimps. It is what it is, they aren't people. If'n you want to give them legal protection, go ahead, by all means and stuff, but they are never going to be classed as people, they are just not the same thing.


Well? The kind of tests needed to move them to a subbranch would cause near riots. Can you imagine what would happen if somebody tried to do a test tube combination of chimp and human? If fertilization could happen, it does beg the question.


No.

This is just a pretext for some sick bastard to try and have sex with them. Sadly, this is how the world is.

Come on now. You really believe the people arguing that are only seeking to have sex with them?

Yes, well however you may view our furry friends, their sparkling wit and ability to come up with a limited repertoire of cute tricks doesn't define personhood. Complete vegetables are classed as people whereas my cat, which certainly outperforms the late Terry Schiavo in the personality and brains department, does not.

It is what it is.

What about self-awareness? Ever read the Harlow tests?

I'd say ye'd have a job. Enraged chimps usually have to be shot, afaik, if they get loose.

Not always. Much of it is bluf. You give them their distance and they calm down and can be coaxed back to their pens. There are cases where escapes have happened and nobody was hurt. For example, one female got out. She made her way to a cafeteria. Snatched a chocolate mile. Took a seat a table with a family(can you image the shock?) drank it and went back to the pen. The keepers found she was using a fallen limb and proping it along a wall and using it for just enough height to make a leap for the top of the wall and climb out.

The Homo Troglodytes is an idiotic definition. Chimps, and other great apes, aren't member of the Homo genus.
This doesn't prevent them to be "person". A living being (or even a thing, like an AI) can be a "person" without being human. Btw, even the "person"/"non person" isn't exactly a black-or-white proposition. A cat, or a dog, are clearly more "person" than a goldfish, or an earthworm.

Person, from latin "persona", meaning "character" (in theatre). "Person" is about relationship with environment and other beings, not about genetics.

Ahh but you are using different families which is not a valid argument. Chimps and humans are both hominds so you have to stick within that realm.

It's not about language, tool use, or anything else. Pans is not bipedal, so its inclusion in the genus Homo should be objected to on that ground, nothing else.

Further, if pans is included in homo, then the subtribes homina and panina are eliminated, and in fact the tribe hominini would effectively become the enlarged genus. i.e. homo sapiens would be now be hominini sapiens.


I haven't heard that classification being accepted overall. It time it could but for now it's still being argued.

Eliminating pans results in needless expansion of the genus and loss of precision in respect to the classification. Left wing rubbish.

versus your bullshit claim about wanting to have sex with chimps?

It's clearly left wing in its impetus. Part of the "animals are people" too crap that libtards are so fond of.

Now you are just sounding stupid; which I know you are not. Stick to what you know as you can make for a decent debate when you try.

Bonobos are a seperate subspecies, not another name for chimp as a whole.

Incorrect pan paniscus vs pan troglodytes....

I wonder what chimp tastes like.

Kind of like chicken


This is what happens when you post when you're stoned.

Why aren't you sharing?

Kind of like chicken




Why aren't you sharing?

I meant the OP was high as a kite when he posted this.

I dont think that they are people. I think only our species is "people". If we meet with other intelligent (around humans or more) alien species in future, they wouldnt be people either.

Having said that, it should be illegal to eat chimps or monkeys (if it isnt already) and they shouldnt incarcerate any except for few and justifiable? (like if they are sick already or something) cases for medical purposes.

But it's a move that hasn't been made, and never will. That would make them more human than Australopithecus, which they're not.
No, that would move Australopithecus and Paranthropus into Homo. If you're going to argue taxonomy, it'd be really nice if you learned how it worked.

No, that would move Australopithecus and Paranthropus into Homo. If you're going to argue taxonomy, it'd be really nice if you learned how it worked.

I thought I would let somebody else have the fun on that one. :)

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are. That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.
That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.

Go take a few biology classes. Maybe even just look up the word "species".

To be fair, species and genera are really bloody confusing to work with, since so many of them are necessarily paraphyletic.

Edit: Australopithecus is actually a great example of this, because we can trace the evolutionary line with near certainty.

Go take a few biology classes. Maybe even just look up the word "species".

I don't think they offer those at the elementry level.

To be fair, species and genera are really bloody confusing to work with, since so many of them are necessarily paraphyletic.

Edit: Australopithecus is actually a great example of this, because we can trace the evolutionary line with near certainty.

I don't think they offer those at the elementry level.

Ok, maybe more than a few biology classes.

Many biology classes, to be honest. Low-level ones tend to still teach the Linnaean system for some unfathomable reason. I mean, some of the terminology is still in use, such as Kingdom, Phylum, the various levels of Family, genus, species, and to a lesser extent, Class. Orders have pretty much fallen by the wayside though. Still use the system for naming them but they usually don't get ranked.*

*This is for a very good reason. My personal favorite example is Dinosauria and Aves. The latter is a class, the former is traditionally considered an order. There are at least fourteen named taxa "between", for lack of a better word, the two.

Beaten to a pulp in his other thread, USofA decides to re-package his egregious evasions there into a whole new thread. Neat.

But the emotions are on a different level. For example a chimp on the Gombi had a offspring die. She carried it for 3 days and was noticed to make kind a wailing sounds. Eventually, it was time to move on and she finally left the body. But she was known to visit the spot from time to time....

Elephants have been known to visit gravesites and places where other elephants died for years.

They solve puzzles As do sheep.

even paint.

Elephants do this too.

No, that would move Australopithecus and Paranthropus into Homo. If you're going to argue taxonomy, it'd be really nice if you learned how it worked.

Well they'd have to shift all the different Paranthropus and Australopithecus species into Homo, which would be a stupid thing to do because if they're different enough from each other to be classified in different genuses, then they're certainly different from humans.

Elephants have been known to visit gravesites and places where other elephants died for years.

As do sheep.



Elephants do this too.

So why don't we let people marry sheeps and elephants too? Aren't we an inclusive society??

Elephants have been known to visit gravesites and places where other elephants died for years.


True but we are not talking about elephants. Nobody is suggesting Elephants moving genus.


As do sheep.
That I did not know. Do they solve puzzles that even humans have problems solving. I have seen chimps fly through some food puzzles....

Elephants do this too.

Oh I know that but again we are talking chimps.

So why don't we let people marry sheeps and elephants too? Aren't we an inclusive society??

Obviously you have never been to Scotland.

Obviously you have never been to Scotland.

They don't marry. Just.....interact passionately.

Obviously you have never been to Scotland.

Wrong country, Wales is the sheep joke place.

Wrong country, Wales is the sheep joke place.

Never heard the why Scotsmen wear kilts joke? ;)

But you are right. I heard a few comments about Wales as well.....

I honestly though that my crack about it being a plot to have sex with chimps would have tipped people off not to take me seriously. I guess sometimes my sense of humor doesn't come through.

That said, it is a stupid thread title. Because clearly, right now, chimps are not people.

He's actually wrong, Bonobos are a separate species, not subspecies.

Though the same genus.

If fertilization could happen, it does beg the question.
Wait, if it were to become a viable organism (and perhaps even reproductively viable), or just that fertilisation occurs?

I'd say that it'd be remotely possible for fertilisation to occur, though most likely the cell would self-abort before division, or the host body would do the same.

True but we are not talking about elephants. Nobody is suggesting Elephants moving genus.
Though the taxonomic and emotional/legal arguments are two different things.

Wrong country, Wales is the sheep joke place.

No, it's New Zealand! :p Or Australia, depending to some NZ'ers

It's an interesting proposition, and one obviously up for plenty of intellectual debate. (As well as gigantic amounts of uninformed rubbish debate, but you get that for any subject, really.)

The more we learn about chimpanzees, the more human they seem, and certainly the closer to sapience they seem. While I'm still honestly hesitant about the idea of extending personhood to them as of right now--if only because the only real way it could work with the way things currently stand is through some kind of tiered personhood, which is just BEGGING to be super abused--I'm certainly all for them having as much special protection through law as possible. If nothing else, chimpanzees certainly represent much higher intelligence and level of consciousness than the vast majority of species on our planet, and are worth preserving for that alone.

At the moment, in regards to chimpanzee personhood...I'm still in a "wait and see" mode for now.

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are.

Clearly, because the abilities to add small numbers and made a stone blade are what define personhood. When you think about it, there's absolutely nothing else that distinguishes people from other living creatures.

Don't forget the DNA. 98.9% the same as us.

And we have roughly 85% of our genes in common with mice. Mice are people too!

Though the same genus.

Not really. They were misclassified because they were thought to be "pygmy" chimps at first.

And we have roughly 85% of our genes in common with mice. Mice are people too!

we have about 60% in common with a freaking amoeba.

Not really. They were misclassified because they were thought to be "pygmy" chimps at first.

Aren't they both Pan?

1. Despite this being an argument about personhood, no one has defined what makes an entity a person -- although it has been implied that personhood is somehow genetically or biologically based on being human or sufficiently close to human (and that implication is silly).

2. A human is a homo sapien. Personhood is a state of having moral rights and responsibilities. Almost (if not) all humans are persons at least after birth and until brain death.

That said, I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is inherently concerned with human beings who have been born.

3. One doesn't necessarily have to be a person in order for our society to place value on an entity and/or grant some measure of protection or rights to said entity. (It should go without saying that this is even more true of whether or not one is "human.")

4. Personally, I lack the knowledge to judge if other species such as chimps are persons. I do think that at least some species are close enough to personhood that it makes sense to extend at least some protections/rights to them.

What kind of rights is the OP asking for, out of curiosity? I'm pretty sure its illegal to kill chimps, at least on the books, in countries that have them. Are we looking for voting rights?

That said, I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.



So the completely mad need not apply. Whereas my cat is a person.

In any event, trying to judge personhood is always going to be subjective. Therefore you might as well just draw and arbitrary bright line. I draw it at humans.

That said, I don't preclude giving legal protection to other entities, if and when it is required.

Wait, if it were to become a viable organism (and perhaps even reproductively viable), or just that fertilisation occurs?

I'd say that it'd be remotely possible for fertilisation to occur, though most likely the cell would self-abort before division, or the host body would do the same.


My guess that would be the outcome. However, we will probably never know for sure. There are just too much similarities. For example, ever see a chimp heart and a human heart side by side. Nearly indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Which makes one wonder what would have happened if they had used a chimp heart instead of a baboon heart for that transplant that was done in the 70s. Baboon hearts are noticeably different....

Though the taxonomic and emotional/legal arguments are two different things.

True. But we are talking about whether or not the higher primates deserve personhood. They are similar in many ways and bringing up species nothing more then a distraction.

No, it's New Zealand! :p Or Australia, depending to some NZ'ers

Ok. You win that one. If I remember right, there are more sheep then people there. ;)

Aren't they both Pan?

Yes. Originally, they were thought to be a subspecies of chimp. As they were studied more; it was decided they were not....

what is "sick" is the human species' collective egocentrism. it is simply and entirely inexcusable.

on many absolutely equivalent basis, one might very well ask, and conclude to reject, are humans people?Humans are superior to all other life and shall always be.:p

And we have roughly 85% of our genes in common with mice. Mice are people too!

we have about 60% in common with a freaking amoeba.

And it shows you what the smallest difference in DNA does.

Now if those two were hominids; you might have a claim....

Are they capable of philosophy?

*waits for some wanker to claim that Libertarians/Anarchists/Republicans/Democrats/Marxists are subhuman by that measure*

Are chimps able to understand logic? (see above)

That said, I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.


Chimps pass both of those. Harlow's dot tests showed they are self aware. They also like mirrors....

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

Goodall wrote about a war in the Gombi. One group split off and became a rival. The main group went about eliminating the others. What she later realized was the fact they were looking for certain chimps that made the other group viable. Once they were gone, the other group broke apart.

Boesch wrote of monkey hunt were he observed the chimp party slowly circled a monkey in the upper trees. One on the ground would keep distracting it while one by one the others went up the trees. Once it was encircled, one of them caught it.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

Bonobos are the most famous example. ;) Chimps are sentient.

5) being able to have emotions.

Chimps have this covered. One interesting thing I read was the capacity to lie. A long story short. A signing chimp lied about getting a cookie from another primatologist moments before. Another test he signed he did....

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is inherently concerned with human beings who have been born.

Yes. Originally, they were thought to be a subspecies of chimp. As they were studied more; it was decided they were not....

So... I was right when I said they were the same genus...

My guess that would be the outcome. However, we will probably never know for sure. There are just too much similarities. For example, ever see a chimp heart and a human heart side by side. Nearly indistinguishable to the untrained eye. Which makes one wonder what would have happened if they had used a chimp heart instead of a baboon heart for that transplant that was done in the 70s. Baboon hearts are noticeably different....
It all depends on the cell markers. For instance, pig organs can be used at a pinch, since their cell surface markers are similar enough to humans (though more anti-rejection drugs, compared to a normal human-human transplant, would need to be taken as well). Probably work better than a pig, worse than a human. It'd still be very interesting, provided the chimp died a natural death.

When it comes to reproduction there tend to be quite a few ways to inhibit 'faulty' zygotes.

True. But we are talking about whether or not the higher primates deserve personhood. They are similar in many ways and bringing up species nothing more then a distraction.
I was just a little confused since both of you were talking about the legal personhood discussion and seemed to be mixing in a proposal to combine Pan and Homo.

So the completely mad need not apply. Whereas my cat is a person.

In any event, trying to judge personhood is always going to be subjective. Therefore you might as well just draw and arbitrary bright line. I draw it at humans.

That said, I don't preclude giving legal protection to other entities, if and when it is required.

Your cat might fail the self awareness test. Granted I don't know of any that have been attempted.

*snip*

Not to split hairs, but how can all five be necessary and sufficient?

And it shows you what the smallest difference in DNA does.

Now if those two were hominids; you might have a claim....

Yes, it does show you... which is why having 98%+ of our genes in common with chimpanzees is not a strong argument for classifying them as people.

What kind of rights is the OP asking for, out of curiosity? I'm pretty sure its illegal to kill chimps, at least on the books, in countries that have them. Are we looking for voting rights?

The bushmeat trade is alive and well. Laws don't mean much over there.

I don't think anybody is looking for them to have voting rights.

Yes, it does show you... which is why having 98%+ of our genes in common with chimpanzees is not a strong argument for classifying them as people.

Oh come on. Your argument would eliminate evolution since the previous species aren't 100% the same.

Are they capable of philosophy?

*waits for some wanker to claim that Libertarians/Anarchists/Republicans/Democrats/Marxists are subhuman by that measure*

Are chimps able to understand logic? (see above)

How about we claim you are subhuman instead! ;)

Well? We really don't know since we don't speak each others language.

Your cat might fail the self awareness test. Granted I don't know of any that have been attempted.

But how would you know? Surely the decision whether some other entity is 'self aware' is purely subjective, is it not?

You can say such and such proves self awareness, but the reality is that all it proves is that whatever it is is your requirement to objectively demonstrate the state. There is no acid test that I can imagine that would resolve the question one way or another absolutely.

And Parrots.

Actually how do you know other people are 'self aware' ?

You can't. All you can see is if other people behave in a way which in your opinion militates for self awareness.

It's all subjective.

I hope they have communist parties :D

But how would you know? Surely the decision whether some other entity is 'self aware' is purely subjective, is it not?

You can say such and such proves self awareness, but the reality is that all it proves is that whatever it is is your requirement to objectively demonstrate the state. There is no acid test that I can imagine that would resolve the question one way or another absolutely.

And Parrots.

Indeed that is where a "reasonable" test would come into play.

Harlows test was rather simple. He introduced mirrors to which fasinated them for awhile and then they got bored with them. After that time; he darted them and painted a dot on their head. They woke up and went about their business and one by one when they happened to walk by the mirror, noticed the spot and went over and studied it, touching it, etc.

They noticed something was different.

Now as to cats and parrots, I can't simply dismiss them as I don't know their species that well. Except having a pet of course. I can't judge so I don't have an opinion.

Tests would be hard. For example a cats fur would be sensitive to painting a dot. If you paint one on do they notice it because it's different or because it causes an irritation?

Now as to a mirror. I could argue no they are not self aware. I had one cat who would always scratch at it trying to get into the room he saw in the mirror. :)

Actually how do you know other people are 'self aware' ?

You can't. All you can see is if other people behave in a way which in your opinion militates for self awareness.

It's all subjective.

Is it? Does not the responses of the person show this? If a person notices something is different about their body(as in the dot test) is that not self aware?

Indeed that is where a "reasonable" test would come into play.

Harlows test was rather simple. He introduced mirrors to which fasinated them for awhile and then they got bored with them. After that time; he darted them and painted a dot on their head. They woke up and went about their business and one by one when they happened to walk by the mirror, noticed the spot and went over and studied it, touching it, etc.

They noticed something was different.

Now as to cats and parrots, I can't simply dismiss them as I don't know their species that well. Except having a pet of course. I can't judge so I don't have an opinion.

Tests would be hard. For example a cats fur would be sensitive to painting a dot. If you paint one on do they notice it because it's different or because it causes an irritation?

Now as to a mirror. I could argue no they are not self aware. I had one cat who would always scratch at it trying to get into the room he saw in the mirror. :)

I don't know. That sounds potentially awfully under-inclusive and over inclusive at that same time.

What did it really prove? That subject X noticed a difference (maybe) with the mirror - a concept, which even if they do understand cannot be explained by them.

That's about it. The rest is purely subjective. Moreover, just because something is not able to recognize itself in a mirror, that would not preclude self awareness.

Is it? Does not the responses of the person show this? If a person notices something is different about their body(as in the dot test) is that not self aware?

Is it? I don't think it is. It could just be behavioral or someshit. Do you look the same every time you look in the mirror? I doubt it. So you fiddle. What if the fiddling was a behavioral response rather than self awareness?

I just think there are massive holes in this.

Is it? I don't think it is. It could just be behavioral or someshit. Do you look the same every time you look in the mirror? I doubt it. So you fiddle. What if the fiddling was a behavioral response rather than self awareness?

I just think there are massive holes in this.

Ahh but if you were not self aware, you wouldn't notice things were different.

Even in this case, you still notice them but you just don't care.

You could argue a behavioral response if the dots were painted in a spot where they could see it without the mirror.

How is it a behavior response when it involves them knowing their face and noticing there is something new on it?

Ahh but if you were not self aware, you wouldn't notice things were different.

Even in this case, you still notice them but you just don't care.

You could argue a behavioral response if the dots were painted in a spot where they could see it without the mirror.

How is it a behavior response when it involves them knowing their face and noticing there is something new on it?

You could notice the mirror is different. You could also be conditioned that pushing things on your own face results in the stuff you can see in the mirror copying it. Put the two together and you could be probing the mirror person, not yourself.

I'm not saying that the test subjects weren't self aware. I am just saying that nothing they did proved that they were self aware. All that was objectively proved was they learned to interact with a mirror.

Sry. I have high standards about proof stuffs.

You could notice the mirror is different. You could also be conditioned that pushing things on your own face results in the stuff you can see in the mirror copying it. Put the two together and you could be probing the mirror person, not yourself.

I'm not saying that the test subjects weren't self aware. I am just saying that nothing they did proved that they were self aware. All that was objectively proved was they learned to interact with a mirror.

Sry. I have high standards about proof stuffs.

The "mirror person" argument would work if the chimp was touching the image in the mirror. They were touching their own heads.

Nothing wrong with challenges. Part of science you know! ;)

Cats fail the mirror test, for the record. They don't realize that it's them. Chimps do, gorillas do, elephants do, octopodes do, dolphins do, and corvids do as well, IIRC.

Oh come on. Your argument would eliminate evolution since the previous species aren't 100% the same.

No, actually, it wouldn't, because I'm not arguing that personhood should be based on genetics whatsoever. You're the one doing that. According to your criteria, if we discovered an alien life form that possessed a degree of self-awareness, intelligence, creativity, sense of culture and communication equal to that of the human race, said aliens could not be considered "people" because of genetic differences. That's like saying that coal should have the same value as diamonds because both are made of carbon, but gold shouldn't be worth as much because it's a different element.

Cats fail the mirror test, for the record. They don't realize that it's them. Chimps do, gorillas do, elephants do, octopodes do, dolphins do, and corvids do as well, IIRC.

I can never decide if my cat is smarter than my dog because she ignores her reflection, or dumber because she's not even curious.

The Homo Troglodytes would be a great name for a band.

You make a joke but one of the theories for where AIDS came from was from eating chimp meat. They have a version called SIDS and it possibly mutated.....

Yeah, but only baby chimps get SIDS, that's why chimp mothers don't leave them face down in their monkey cribs anymore.

The Homo Troglodytes would be a great name for a band.

That would be a good name for a band. It could be a costume gimmick, like GWAR, and you could have cavemen wearing leather pants and mesh t-shirts and vinyl shorts and things like that.

I have this to say: When have you seen a chimp vote for a leader of a country, or fly a plane? The answer: NEVER, and you never will as they are NOT humans in ANY way.

I have this to say: When have you seen a chimp vote for a leader of a country, or fly a plane? The answer: NEVER, and you never will as they are NOT humans in ANY way.
the question was NOT about they're being "humans", it was about nonhumans being "PEOPLE"!

at least that's how i read and read it.

now if you recognize as i do, the only thing UNIQUE, or nearly so, to the human species, among life forms on planet earth, being our degree of drive to express ourselves creatively: by the same logic that says terrestrial nonhumans 'can't' be people, then unimaginative, noncreative, humans, aren't people either!

the question was NOT about they're being "humans", it was about nonhumans being "PEOPLE"!

at least that's how i read and read it.

now if you recognize as i do, the only thing UNIQUE, or nearly so, to the human species, among life forms on planet earth, being our degree of drive to express ourselves creatively: by the same logic that says terrestrial nonhumans 'can't' be people, then unimaginative, noncreative, humans, aren't people either!

I was refering to the opition of giving chimps the genus of Homo.

Yeah, but only baby chimps get SIDS, that's why chimp mothers don't leave them face down in their monkey cribs anymore.

Ok so you found a typo. SAIDS.

And it would be "their ape cribs anymore"

I was refering to the opition of giving chimps the genus of Homo.

ah, that must be what has been eluding me in this discussion.

my own point of course, was and is, the logical dubiousness of equating, absolutely and exclusively, "people" with genus "homo".

Wrong country, Wales is the sheep joke place.

Oh really? Then why did I once hear a Scotsman tell this joke?

What's the difference between a Scottish shepherd and Mick Jagger?
Mick Jagger sang "hey, you, get offa my cloud" and a Scottish shepherd yells "hey McCleod, GIT OFFA MY EWE!"

Lame.

Ok so you found a typo. SAIDS. And it would be "their ape cribs anymore"

I don't know, 'monkey cribs' is somehow inherently funnier, if admittedly less accurate. But then, monkeys are inherently funnier themselves, especially if they're wearing people clothes and have voices dubbed in.

No, actually, it wouldn't, because I'm not arguing that personhood should be based on genetics whatsoever. You're the one doing that. According to your criteria, if we discovered an alien life form that possessed a degree of self-awareness, intelligence, creativity, sense of culture and communication equal to that of the human race, said aliens [b]could not be considered "people" because of genetic differences.[b] That's like saying that coal should have the same value as diamonds because both are made of carbon, but gold shouldn't be worth as much because it's a different element.

Wait what? I never said they had to be an exact genetic match?


Carbon, diamonds, gold? Where does perceived value of materials come into this?

Let's For chimps

Self-Aware? Yes
Intelligent? Yes
Creative? Yes
Culture? yes
Communication? yes

Sounds like it's worth some consideration.....

I don't know, 'monkey cribs' is somehow inherently funnier, if admittedly less accurate. But then, monkeys are inherently funnier themselves, especially if they're wearing people clothes and have voices dubbed in.

:D Sorry my head is in code mode. Converting a campaign for a game.....

ah, that must be what has been eluding me in this discussion.

my own point of course, was and is, the logical dubiousness of equating, absolutely and exclusively, "people" with genus "homo".

It's the old saying. When you make the charts......

Oh really? Then why did I once hear a Scotsman tell this joke?

What's the difference between a Scottish shepherd and Mick Jagger?
Mick Jagger sang "hey, you, get offa my cloud" and a Scottish shepherd yells "hey McCleod, GIT OFFA MY EWE!"

:D Ok you win the thread!

The one I heard was:

Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?

The sheep know the sound of zippers!

:D Sorry my head is in code mode. Converting a campaign for a game.....

I got a new game from a friend of mine just the other day. It's a history game called Total War:Mediaeval World and it's got a Viking Invasion add-on to it. I'm looking forward to trying it

I got a new game from a friend of mine just the other day. It's a history game called Total War:Mediaeval World and it's got a Viking Invasion add-on to it. I'm looking forward to trying it

HMmmm. Vikings. I might have to pick up that add-on.....

It looks pretty sweet. It looks to be pretty accurate as well, which is a bonus. While not knowing enough to assertively make the claim, I'm going to assume that computer games tend to play as fast and loose with history as Hollywood does

Cat Tribes, I and a few others expressed concern about the possibility of a tiered personhood, or some other way of setting it that could potentially create a system for easy abuse.

Is this even remotely possible legally? That is, could such a tiered personhood system even be created?

A human is a homo sapiens.
Ego sum nazista grammaticae.

Personhood is a state of having moral rights and responsibilities.
I think that this is more geared towards political/civil rights and citizenship.



4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5) being able to have emotions.
These two are perhaps the most inclusive.
ALL mammals feel pain/pleasure... well, probabily all animals with a central nervous system.
As for emotions, mammals and birds have emotions, such fear, anxiety... some even feel love and jealousy.


Personally, I lack the knowledge to judge if other species such as chimps are persons.
I think that one of the best ways to define personality is a sort of a Turing test.

Ahh but you are using different families which is not a valid argument. Chimps and humans are both hominds so you have to stick within that realm.

Why do I have to "stick within that realm"?

Why do I have to "stick within that realm"?

Because the topic is about the great apes. You would be right if the argument was for all creatures.

It's not about language, tool use, or anything else. Pans is not bipedal, so its inclusion in the genus Homo should be objected to on that ground, nothing else.

Further, if pans is included in homo, then the subtribes homina and panina are eliminated, and in fact the tribe hominini would effectively become the enlarged genus. i.e. homo sapiens would be now be hominini sapiens.

Eliminating pans results in needless expansion of the genus and loss of precision in respect to the classification. Left wing rubbish.

So human babies are not persons if they are younger than say 1. Because to be a person you have to be able to walk on two feet. ??

Self-Aware? Yes
Intelligent? Yes
Creative? Yes
Culture? yes
Communication? yes

Chimps are NOT FULLY self-aware. Humans are.

You know, I think we have already accepted chimps into the ranks of humanity. At least Americans have. Back in 2000, there was quite a bit of controversy involved to be sure, but the case reached the highest court in the land and they decided. It was a decision that many disagreed with, but since we all respect democracy in this land, we have all abided by it.

Can you link to that??? I would like to read it.

Can you link to that??? I would like to read it.

you just got pwned.

What kind of rights is the OP asking for, out of curiosity? I'm pretty sure its illegal to kill chimps, at least on the books, in countries that have them. Are we looking for voting rights?

Can we start with the rights and protections afforded to 5 year old humans? Since the claim is that chimpanzee IQ is equivalent to that of a human 5 year old?
Or is 4 year old???

So human babies are not persons if they are younger than say 1. Because to be a person you have to be able to walk on two feet. ??


There is a growing consensus among biologists that animals do not change species via the act of maturing, and that classification criteria related to the adult morphology are not compromised by preceding growth phases.

Your line of reasoning makes John Malkovich want to put a gun in his mouth to avoid living with the reality that you and he share some common ancestor.

you just got pwned.

This is why I come back to NSG. For the lols and the pwnage.

Are they capable of philosophy?

*waits for some wanker to claim that Libertarians/Anarchists/Republicans/Democrats/Marxists are subhuman by that measure*

Are chimps able to understand logic? (see above)

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Debating/animal_logic.htm

Creative problem solving.

-Chimps getting banana using boxes and sticks

Use of tools.

chimps using sticks, leaves as weapons.

Learning through imitation.

orangutan washing clothes and self. (after seeing humans do it)

Understanding arithmetical concepts.

Dr. Irene Pepperberg (U of Arizona) has a parrot Alex who could count the "yellow blocks"
Chimp: could count the nuts in the bowl

Skeptic: He says what would REALLY be impressive would be evidence that an animal could do ARITHMETIC.

New experiment: can a chimp do arithmetic? Can a chimp ADD the number of apples in one bowl to the number of oranges in another bowl and get the right total? Answer was YES.

Chimps are NOT FULLY self-aware. Humans are.

can you prove that for a fact?

you just got pwned.

I was asking him to cite his source. The only court cases i know of are the ones in Europe where the court did not address directly whether Chimps were people. But it is interesting to note that the judge, when tossing the case, said that not only did the plaintiffs not have standing, but that the Chimp in the case was not so incapicitated that it could not make rational decisions for itself. Sounds like a step toward personhood for Chimps but it looks like the Euro Court will get the final say.

I was asking him to cite his source.

This is the chimp

http://www.tariqkhonji.com/images/bush_monkey%5B1%5D.png

I was asking him to cite his source. The only court cases i know of are the ones in Europe where the court did not address directly whether Chimps were people. But it is interesting to note that the judge, when tossing the case, said that not only did the plaintiffs not have standing, but that the Chimp in the case was not so incapicitated that it could not make rational decisions for itself. Sounds like a step toward personhood for Chimps but it looks like the Euro Court will get the final say.

You're missing the point. The comment about chimps are people being decided in 2000 is supposed to be a joke. Granted, as an attempt at humor it's lame and not really that funny, but it is a joke, nonetheless.

On an unrelated note, I'd like to see a 'Euro Court' get the 'final say', on, well, anything, really.

I missed it.

They went to the top court and the top court refused to hear it so they appealled to the European Court.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/chimpanzees-not.html



True. They even have their own cultures, just as humans have their cultures.

"



quit true. They can even do the same kind of basic math that most humans on the planet are capable of. Adding and subtracting.


Some even suggest that chimpanzees and other great apes should be granted human rights.






They can talk to you. If you know sign language. They have their own unique cultures depending on where in the world they live. Just like homo sapiens.
They make tools just like homo sapiens.
They build homes in their natural environs just like homo sapiens.
They are capable of adding and subtracting, just like homo sapiens.
They can remember friends just like homo sapiens.
They are able to tell the difference between right and wrong just like homo sapiens.
They can make tools, like homo sapiens.
They even have compassion and they can hello. They can tell you if they are horny or if they are mad at you.

Clearly, everything about them, except their appearance, makes them just as much persons as we homo sapiens are. That is why they've been redisignated as Homo Troglodytes in many circles.
That move alone, moves them into the human branch of the primate family tree.


But some birds can do basic math as well. And they build houses, they can show when they are horny, mad or whatever.

Are birds humans too?

Chimps are NOT FULLY self-aware. Humans are.

All right?

Please expound on that.....

Cat Tribes, I and a few others expressed concern about the possibility of a tiered personhood, or some other way of setting it that could potentially create a system for easy abuse.

Is this even remotely possible legally? That is, could such a tiered personhood system even be created?

Since private companies are "people" (kinda sorta in a way) legally(obvious not-lawyer is obvious) Im' sure it wouldn't be impossible.

As I said, if you all think they need some kind of legal protection, I've got no problem with that. But as far as general personhood goes, there is a bright line and I am drawing it.

So a person can only be of the human species? Well apart from that being wrong(the definition of the word person also includes a being of sentiance), let me ask you this.

If an alien force landed on Earth, and it was evidant that they where several orders more mentaly capable and advanced than humans, would the label 'person' not be correct for them also?

So it appears the OP is doing this thread for the sole reason of justifying a slippery slope analogy in the prop 8 thread. Don't know if I want to continue this as I was only discussing the chimps similarities to humans, etc.

Here is the post he did in the other thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14389935&postcount=330

New experiment: can a chimp do arithmetic? Can a chimp ADD the number of apples in one bowl to the number of oranges in another bowl and get the right total? Answer was YES. [/COLOR]
So? Parrots can do this. Are they human.

the question was NOT about they're being "humans", it was about nonhumans being "PEOPLE"!

at least that's how i read and read it.

now if you recognize as i do, the only thing UNIQUE, or nearly so, to the human species, among life forms on planet earth, being our degree of drive to express ourselves creatively: by the same logic that says terrestrial nonhumans 'can't' be people, then unimaginative, noncreative, humans, aren't people either!

That is a very good point from a non-speciest pov (though most people wouldn't like that logic).

The only problem with personhood status is that it'd either become very little in terms of protections and the such, or a tiered system would develop.

I was refering to the opition of giving chimps the genus of Homo.

Well Homo =/= Person (unless we have suddenly declared Homo Habilis were people).

Since private companies are "people" (kinda sorta in a way) legally(obvious not-lawyer is obvious) Im' sure it wouldn't be impossible.

I find the personhood of corporations rather silly, and even then it's still a tiered system (though more to the people running the corporation's benefit).

2. A human is a homo sapiens.

Actually it's Homo sapiens sapiens. We're a subspecies. :D