Animals, Aliens and Human Destiny
IntroductionSince the dawn of science fiction, we have speculated about the possibility of nonhuman sapient life on other planets. This is not hyperbole: some of the earliest guesses that other worlds might exist like the Earth also postulated that other races of "men" might exist on these other worlds. The supposition makes sense: why could
( Read more... )
Actually, very many scientists do, at least when it comes to acknowledging that their mental equipment may be functioning on a level roughly equivalent, though inferior in detail, to our own.
The issue is... so what? What is the significance of it, other than some interesting natural trivia?
On the most basic level, its significance is that we are not alone, and that we should begin forming cultural institutions to enable us to treat the higher animal as (stupid) people rather than as chattel property. We do not buy, sell, or casually kill people who happen to be mentally retarded: we should likewise not buy, sell or casually kill people who happen to be nonhuman great apes.
At a minimum. Because, if we can't tolerate and get along with our cousins, who can we tolerate and get along with?
My understanding is that to whatever degree apes and dolphins actually posses sapience, they do so on a very low level. What, if anything, can we learn from them?
For one thing, they would be sapient nonhumans, meaning they would view the world in subtly different ways. They might think thoughts that we might not have conceived: "stupid" does not mean "mentally vacant." Their cultures, developed in places we don't live and involving ways of life that we don't use, might have discovered things we haven't. To take one practical example, since we realized that chimpanzees have herbal traditions, we have added to our own pharmacopiae by studying theirs.
A mentally retarded child might also technically possess sapience, but that doesn't mean anyone is interested in what they have to say.
I would be if I knew him, personally. And the great apes are probably, on average, smarter than "mentally retarded" -- Koko tested in the merely "subnormal" range. One should also consider the possibility of augmenting animal intelligence -- if there is going to be a Singularity, it need not affect only our own species.
Although the discovery of extraterrestrial life, even low-level sapient life, might have profound implications for the way humans think about their role in the cosmos, I think in very short order that too would pass into the role of scientific trivia.
Any extraterrestrial life would be of immense value to our study of Earthlife, because we would be able to judge which factors of our own biology were essential and which accidental. Sapient extraterrestrial life would do something similar for the study of psychology, even more so than sapient nonhuman Earth life (because of the lack of a recent common origin). As for technologically advanced sapient extraterrestrials, this would be profoundly important to our whole future. We would have competitors -- or partners -- in the great game of Existence.
Reply
Reply
My bias in favor of whom or against whom?
In the Third World where most of these animals are found, there are grave rights abuses for both animals and people in general, which "we" as a species commit.
I'm well aware of that. Your point being?
Even in the First World, we lock up the mentally substandard if they are a danger to others.
Yes, we do -- but (1) they first have to prove themselves a danger to others through some action, (2) they are locked up as wards of the state, not as chattel property. This is perhaps a subtle difference, but it makes a big difference in terms of how they are allowed to be treated under the law.
By contrast, even the most harmless sort of sapient nonhuman animal is under law a "thing" with no legal "personality."
Reply
We do not buy, sell, or casually kill people who happen to be mentally retarded: we should likewise not buy, sell or casually kill people who happen to be nonhuman great apes.
This is what I was saying, because "we" do do these things. It's not right, but "we" do. But you're well aware of that, which I assumed, I just didn't think that statement was accurate.
Although I agree with you on the later, it would be more difficult to subdue a raging gorilla than a raging human.
Incidentally, I remember hearing that chimpanzees only have the mental ability of a three-year old. I think it was because they couldn't think of themselves in the third person, or something similar. I was wondering what your criteria for "sapience" was.
Reply
Gorillas are actually less of a problem than chimpanzees. Not that the gorilla wouldn't be stronger if it got angry, simply that it would take a lot more to drive the gorilla into a rage. Orangs can be pretty violent, too. Bonobos and gorillas are the two least violent great apes (probably less so than Man).
Oh, I'm not saying that we should let apes, at their current level of socialization, wander unsupervised through human cities. I'm saying that they should be treated as "people" rather than "things."
Incidentally, I remember hearing that chimpanzees only have the mental ability of a three-year old. I think it was because they couldn't think of themselves in the third person, or something similar.
I'm not sure why you believe that they can't. One problem that chimps have, that renders them inferior communicators to bonobos or gorillas, is that they are too excitable. An overly-excited chimpanzee tends to act without thinking very clearly, just as we do -- but they're not as bright as we are.
I had, by the way, heard more like 4-year-old, in terms of the equivalent human mentation. Note, though, that we don't treat 4-year-olds as chattel property, we treat them as (irresponsible) people.
I was wondering what your criteria for "sapience" was.
The ability to think conceptually and deliberately, including to think about the process of thinking.
Reply
Leave a comment