|
Post by kristine on May 13, 2010 15:38:20 GMT -5
Keeping chimps as pets is wrong. In the attacks, I believe that the chimp picks up on the fact that it is not an egalitarian relationship, and rebels. I've heard of dolphin attacks too, but only confined dolphins attacking the trainer or human riding them. Dolphin wanted to tell someone that he's allergic to chlorine, the pool is too small, never gets vacations to see his family, "I've told them this a million times and they don't goddammotherfuking listen to me." I also understand that they are acting out behaviors that are perfectly natural if they start treating the trainers or tourists just like the would another dolphin in the pod. People have been slammed into - bones broken, internal bleeding ...etc. - because this is how dolphins relay dominance (and sometimes play) with each other. IMO Dolphins and chimps should have a classification all their own - Non-human Personhood being a good classification that indicates they are assigned a higher value than a dog or cat but should not be expected to integrate into human society.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on May 13, 2010 15:43:53 GMT -5
We already do have entities that we consider higher than cats and dogs but don't expect to fully integrate into society. They're still considered people, generally.
Of course, we also consider it murder to kill humans without functioning nervous systems. So maybe what we do now isn't the best system.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on May 13, 2010 21:53:13 GMT -5
Just put them in the same category as foreigners and children.
Human-like, but not quite there yet.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 13, 2010 22:31:17 GMT -5
Human-like objects
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 13, 2010 23:11:47 GMT -5
My opinion: Every animal is a "person" within its own species.
Humans included.
Still, though, chimpanzees are capable of learning sign language. If they had the vocal chords, I'm sure we could teach them necessary bits of English. We could probably fully bridge the language barrier at some point, although this would involve somehow teaching a wild chimpanzee sign language and encouraging it to teach it to other chimpanzees.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on May 14, 2010 1:38:10 GMT -5
At what point in our evolution would we Sapiens qualify our own genus as having achieved personhood? (if this has been discussed, forgive me... i'm not up to thread digging today... packing fatigue)
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 14, 2010 4:13:59 GMT -5
At what point in our evolution would we Sapiens qualify our own genus as having achieved personhood? (if this has been discussed, forgive me... i'm not up to thread digging today... packing fatigue) Tough question, complicated by the fact that hominid evolution was not a straight progression but instead a series of branchings, and goes back to what we mean by personhood. If we mean having the same moral standing and ability to integrate into human society as H. sapiens, then H. neanderthalis would definitely be included, since we and they interbred. Beyond that, I don't think we can say based on fossil evidence.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 14, 2010 11:19:25 GMT -5
At what point in our evolution would we Sapiens qualify our own genus as having achieved personhood? (if this has been discussed, forgive me... i'm not up to thread digging today... packing fatigue) I have no scientific answer for this, but I can predict what fundies would say: Homos just aren't EVER people.
|
|
|
Post by itheman on May 14, 2010 16:27:45 GMT -5
What, no Meerkat option?
|
|
|
Post by solomongrundy on May 14, 2010 17:51:31 GMT -5
...even living sharks are fast, solitary predators that deal with hunting in 3D space. So the most complicated tactic they need is "swim in a straight line towards future food."
Though I don't agree with him in the least regarding his views on conservation shark hunter Vic Hislop does make makes one valid point. If you dissect out a tiger shark's brain it's about half the size of one of its eyeballs. You can't expect a creature like that to exhibit complicated hunting tactics. What it does is effective enough though.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 14, 2010 22:53:25 GMT -5
Just kind of my thought regarding humans and persons and other animals and stuff... I think humans have ended up being the first species that actively seeks to evolve. We're always trying to push the boundaries of technology, our understanding of the world, and how exactly evolution works in the first place.
So, for defining what I think constitutes a "person" regardless of species... Any creature that's self-aware enough to work to better its species by pushing the limits of technology (Example: Maybe a primate would end up devising a better way to get insects out of a log rather than sticking a stick in. For example... fashioning that stick into a straw and sucking the insects up would be "pushing the limits of technology") and/or seeking knowledge of any sort would be a "person", regardless of their actual intelligence level.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 14, 2010 23:37:13 GMT -5
Just kind of my thought regarding humans and persons and other animals and stuff... I think humans have ended up being the first species that actively seeks to evolve. We're always trying to push the boundaries of technology, our understanding of the world, and how exactly evolution works in the first place. So, for defining what I think constitutes a "person" regardless of species... Any creature that's self-aware enough to work to better its species by pushing the limits of technology (Example: Maybe a primate would end up devising a better way to get insects out of a log rather than sticking a stick in. For example... fashioning that stick into a straw and sucking the insects up would be "pushing the limits of technology") and/or seeking knowledge of any sort would be a "person", regardless of their actual intelligence level. So a cat that figures out how to open a door is a person?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on May 15, 2010 2:13:17 GMT -5
What it does is effective enough though. Brute force is pretty effective when you're significantly larger than your prey and have rows upon rows of enormous, sharp teeth.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on May 15, 2010 3:27:40 GMT -5
You also need to be fast or a good ambush predator or a pack animal. In water, the first works far better than the others, though there are certainly examples of all of them. On land all three are viable. The pack animals tend to be smartest (though, cats are pretty smart too, and generally are a combination of fast and good at ambushing).
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on May 15, 2010 12:37:31 GMT -5
Just kind of my thought regarding humans and persons and other animals and stuff... I think humans have ended up being the first species that actively seeks to evolve. We're always trying to push the boundaries of technology, our understanding of the world, and how exactly evolution works in the first place. So, for defining what I think constitutes a "person" regardless of species... Any creature that's self-aware enough to work to better its species by pushing the limits of technology (Example: Maybe a primate would end up devising a better way to get insects out of a log rather than sticking a stick in. For example... fashioning that stick into a straw and sucking the insects up would be "pushing the limits of technology") and/or seeking knowledge of any sort would be a "person", regardless of their actual intelligence level. So a cat that figures out how to open a door is a person? Don't be ridiculous. Cats are better than people.
|
|