Human Geniuses versus Sapient Nonhuman Animals -- The Unfair Comparison

[jordan179]

Sometimes, when I argue that some nonhuman animals are sapient, and present evidence, people point out by way of reply that Koko's ability to create little couplets or Alex's to know his numbers is hardly proof of sapience such as possessed by humans. They point out that gorillas and grey parrots are not capable of creativity on the order of

Comments

[luagha]

As I am fond of saying, my snake is very good at being a snake. She is not a dog and can't be treated like one; and it's unfair to expect her to respond like one.

She has moods and attitudes like other animals, and she exhibits personality that is different even from other snakes. (She's afraid of thunderstorms, for example, and will crawl out of her cage into your hands and curl up for consolation and safety).

But she is still a snake.

[jordan179]

Well yes, but snakes are nowhere near as smart as nonhuman great apes. Or African Gray parrots. Heck, they probably aren't near as smart as dogs. I wasn't talking about civil rights for snakes.

[gothelittle]

I think that animal behavior more strongly supports the notion of civil rights for elephants than for apes.

What I look for is more 'emotional' than just raw intelligence. I ask myself if an animal species shows compassion, contemplates what comes after death, etc.

I'd also like to know whether the animal in question is bucking instincts to do what that animal believes to be right.

Basically, I don't care if a certain species of ape is capable of writing Shakespeare and solving algebraic equations if it is also in the habit of, say, killing the babies of its own species for the crime of being sired by a different male.

[jordan179]

What I look for is more 'emotional' than just raw intelligence. I ask myself if an animal species shows compassion,

I direct you to Frans De Waal, Good Nature, regarding the evolution of compassion in the great apes.

... contemplates what comes after death, etc.

http://py.vaults.ca/~x/tquotes/tquotes.py?D=199

Basically, I don't care if a certain species of ape is capable of writing Shakespeare and solving algebraic equations if it is also in the habit of, say, killing the babies of its own species for the crime of being sired by a different male.

Well, we sometimes do that. Especially in a condition of social chaos, which is the condition under which gorillas are likely to do that.

Normally, the dominant silverback is succeeded by one of his own sons, with the males in the family acting together to defeat challenges by wandering rgoue males. Young children of the previous silverback are less likely to be killed by their uncle than by a rogue taking

[gothelittle]

Ah, I was responding to your original point. Didn't realize you had another point behind it

[jordan179]

I do not believe that we descended from apes (or a common ancestor),

Assuming that you're some sort of Creationist, we are clearly a closely allied concept in the Mind of God, then, since we are so similar. All this would mean would be that we were killing and eating our close ideological (rather than biological) kin, which would also be a horrid thing to do.

I do not support extending 'human rights' to animals, but I do support identifying and providing 'animal rights' that vary by species and meet their needs.

And what rights would you accord to species which are almost as intelligent as ourselves?

I do not believe that the IQ Test version of intelligence is what should determine someone's or something's claim to human rights.It's not purely a matter of the Stanford-Binet, or some variant thereof. Some sapient animals command respect for their creativity and humor, both things which do not register on standard IQ tests. For instance, Koko's deliberate identification of a white towel as "red" (because it had a tiny piece of

[sekhmetsat]

It's been known FOR YEARS. It is the "humans aren't animals" type thinking that keeps things screwed up. And, for the record, while not being veg, I DO think more animals than people deserve to be alive.

[galadrion]

For more argument ammunition on this point, you really ought to read Superfreakonomics, especially the epilogue. It details a laboratory experiment involving a troupe of capuchin monkeys (not the brightest primates out there) who were taught the rudiments of money. Most of the experimenters didn't expect much out of them; in one participant's words, capuchins think mostly of sex and food -- and not particularly much, at that. But, to the team's surprise, the monkeys began demonstrating economically rational behavior... and then staged a "bank robbery" followed by negotiation for the return of the stolen money and the first experimentally recorded instance of monkey prostitution!

It's written very humorously, but there are some deep truths in there too.

[mrmeval]

When the animals organize, wage war, win and force me to acknowledge their rights I'll be more than happy to acknowledge their rights. Until then it's Eden where people are people and animals are food and slaves. ;)

There's a good story in that.

[jordan179]

When the animals organize, wage war, win and force me to acknowledge their rights I'll be more than happy to acknowledge their rights.

Be careful of this moral POV. We may someday be the militarily inferior species. Which is one of the points of my "Animals, Aliens and Human Destiny" (http://jordan179.livejournal.com/59278.html).

[mrmeval]

It's not a matter of being careful it's a matter of what is. Just a note though time travel is cheating and Planet of the Apes sucked for it. ;)

[jordan179]

It's not a matter of being careful it's a matter of what is.

It is not necessary for the group whose rights were being denied to militarily defeat the group which was denying those rights for civil rights to be extended. Historically, there have been numerous examples of the extension of civil rights by moral persuasion, and others of their extension by combat between another group and the oppressors.