RP - "To a Fallen Hero"

[jordan179]

Reposted from 2006, back when my blog had very few readers. Thought I'd put it out again now, see what people thought of it.

"To A Fallen Hero -

On the Severed Head of a Gorilla, Slain for 'Bush Meat'"Greetings, cousin

Comments

[miss_breeziness]

I've thought about this a bit, and wonder about the question - should species such as apes and elephants be granted property rights? And should people be allowed to own them? I've heard of some very effective (in terms of how many elephants actually end up alive) conservation programs which give villages ownership of the elephants in their area. But if elephants are morally the equivalent of children, then such programs would be as wrong as owning and selling children.
I think it would be a rather difficult thing to enforce legally - not saying that it wouldn't be right - especially since so many governments, and individual people, don't even respect the rights of humans.

[jordan179]

I think that eventually we need to treat the sapient animals (apes, elephants, orcas, etc.) as some sort of wards. They are clearly not as intelligent as humans, and are thus fairly helpless when faced with armed human aggression, but they are also clearly too intelligent to be morally treated as property rather than people. I do think that they should have some sort of property rights.

I realize that this would all be very hard to enforce legally, and to enforce in such a way as to avoid abusive corruption. It's a cruel irony that our own smartest relatives, the great apes, mostly live in countries where even humans are treated like dirt -- which leaves them little hope for survival with dignity in their own homelands :(

[miss_breeziness]

I do think that people who don't give a damn about members of their own species sure won't give one about others.

The treatment of animals by some humans (even the less intelligent species) is absolutely disgusting - but we've also got to remember that human slavery ended only, like, 150 years ago. Not too long a time in cultural terms. (And it's still going on in some places.)

Also, I wonder where one draws the line at such things - how we determine what animals are okay to use for food, for instance. I don't think too many people will complain about oysters and fish (apart from the PETA types), but cows and chickens? Hmm...

I also think that there should be ways for Africans to profit from wild animals, if they don't own them, under this system. I have heard that many farmers, for instance, kill elephants because they eat their crops - it's hard not to sympathize with the farmers when you consider their standard of living is so much lower than ours and they probably need the crops to survive. Unlike us in the rich countries, who

[expanding_x_man]

Thanks for posting this. It is horrifying to hear about these noble animals, who indeed are our close cousins, being killed like this. I agree that this silverback knew what he was doing when he ambushed the hunting party. I hope that someday, the predation by humans will end.

[jordan179]

Especially since it's so cruel and pointless. It's cousin to cannibalism, and it's hardly necessary as a food source. I honestly think that one of the reasons why the trade still survives is simple sadism -- it counts more emotionally to know that you've caused to be killed and you will now eat something so similar to oneself, than to kill and eat a cow.

[lironess]

I love this poem. I personally know that all animals have feelings and think.

Science is finally starting to realize that animals are much more aware than they were given credit for in the past and times are changing. There are a lot of books out about this now.

Have you read "Gorillas in the Mist"? Or the new one, "Westly the Owl"? I think you may like both of them.

[jordan179]

I've read both Gorillas in the Mist and another bio of Dianne Fossey, who IMHO qualifies as the ethological version of a good-guy Mad Scientist. She was definitely a bit crazy, but mostly in a good way, and it's thanks to her that it's now popularly known that gorillas are more gentle giants than ravening monsters.

Never read "Westly the Owl," but I've been following some of the recent discoveries of pscittacid and corvid sapience.

[lironess]

Wesleys "mom" used to be a biologist and talks about how even scientists are beginning to recognize that animals are MUCH more aware than they have ever been given credit for. Plus it is a really interesting cool book that you might like :)

[john_j_enright]

Nice poem!

[miss_breeziness]

I think we need a rational animal rights movement...one without the "flies shouldn't be swatted by the President", or the "humans suck and destroy everything by just being there". I could go for that.

[jordan179]

I agree. PETA does more harm than good by making impossible demands of humanity. We must grant sapient animals rights in the form of mutual bargains, otherwise they will be unsupportable, and the basis for these bargains has to be mutual non-aggression. Animals which are too stupid or too aggressive to make and keep such bargains cannot be protected by them.

Gorillas, of course, are neither stupid nor unreasonably aggressive, which is why I think they make a good animal with which we can bargain prodcutively in this fashion.

[miss_breeziness]

"PETA does more harm than good by making impossible demands of humanity."

So does the environmental movement, I would argue, a lot of the time.

A lot of environmental/animal rights talk seem to go "OMG humans are evil, capitalism is evil, development is evil", which really started putting me off in my teens. The trouble with them, I would argue, is that they see the relationship of humans to nature, or to animals, as one in which one side HAS to lose. I'd argue that people who go "cut down all the trees and build factories" are just the same, only on the opposite side of this war.

I wonder if it will be possible to have mutually beneficial trading relationships with the more intelligent animals - if it is, that would be really cool.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to double post. I thought the first one didn't go through because I got a "you're not connected to the Net" message.

[gothelittle]

I can tell you one thing that most animals seem to have in common... a genuine enjoyment of a relationship with a human. I've seen a chicken follow her favorite person around. I've seen how a dog lives within a human family "pack". I've seen seals glory in their job of fetching and placing tags for their human handlers.

So if some animals are perpetual children, why don't we treat them like perpetual children?

The reason why children are afforded more and more rights in time is that they grow up. Now and then, however, you come across someone who will never quite make it mentally out of childhood. What do we do with them?

They usually live out their lives in their relatives' houses, working some simple job in the community that they can handle. Several of them are baggers at my local grocery store (very GOOD baggers, I might add), or janitors at my husband's workplace.

How would life change for elephants if it was more acceptable to own and train them? How could a gorilla benefit society?

[jordan179]

So if some animals are perpetual children, why don't we treat them like perpetual children?

Precisely. That's what I mean by "wardship."

How would life change for elephants if it was more acceptable to own and train them? How could a gorilla benefit society?

Well, for one thing, both of the creatures you've named are strong. They could do manual labor and be paid for it: the money earned could be used to support them.

And I do see how this could be abused, and thus why any such program would require careful supervision of the guardians.

[miss_breeziness]

"So if some animals are perpetual children, why don't we treat them like perpetual children?

Precisely. That's what I mean by "wardship."

How would life change for elephants if it was more acceptable to own and train them? How could a gorilla benefit society?

Well, for one thing, both of the creatures you've named are strong. They could do manual labor and be paid for it: the money earned could be used to support them."

That sounds like a very good idea.

And yes, some people will definitely abuse it - but then, there are people who abuse their own children for goodness' sake. That is generally not used as an argument for removing parental authority from all children. (Except by a very few people...)