Animal Rights Nonsense: Change Name of Homo Sapiens
I so often write about the deadly serious side of the animal rights movement--the threats to people--that I too often forget to point out some of the more jejune stunts that some advocates pull. Case in point: One animal rights activist wants to change the name of Homo sapiens. From his call to sign a petition a (my emphasis):
WHEREAS "complex" describes human beings far more comprehensively than does "sapient" and so the Latin complexus describes human beings and differentiates our species from others more accurately than does sapiens;Well, I am happy the term human exceptionalism is catching on. Moreover, it seems obvious to me that the very acts of being able to conceive of and write this dumb petition are examples of human exceptionalism in action. But never mind. If dopey petitions like this--to change the name of our species to Homo complexus--diverts animal rights activists from more serious subversions, let them have at it.
Whereas human beings act based on names and descriptors, accurate or not, at least as much as on demonstrated reality;
Whereas calling themselves by the inaccurate name Homo sapiens promotes and perpetuates an attitude in human beings of their own exceptionalism & superiority;
Whereas Carolus Linnaeus acted non-scientifically when he invented the name Homo sapiens--deferring to a belief in human exceptionalism & superiority based on established religion, to avoid persecution due to the lack of legal protection for free speech & thought in his time;
Whereas calling themselves by the inaccurate name Homo sapiens and deeming themselves inherently superior to and more worthy of consideration than other beings is a factor in human behavior that unjustly and to humans' and all other beings' disadvantage destroys other beings and disrupts Earth's ecosystems & biosphere;
Whereas, as long as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the scientific community generally sanctions use of the Homo sapiens for human beings, those who strive to teach ecology and ethics and to reverse ecologically destructive behavior and its consequences will be in the untenable position of referring to the beings perpetuating such behavior as sapient;
Whereas recognizing hyper-complexity rather than sapience as their distinguishing trait, human beings will be more likely to establish a less-unjust and less-destructive relationship to other beings and the rest of nature than they have wrought to date;
Whereas the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accepted worldwide as the authority on species names and therefore is in a position to change human thought and behavior for the better by giving our species a more accurate name;
Labels: Animal Rights Movement. Stunts.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:11 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Complex may describe humans accurately, but it just as accurately describes every other mammal, reptile or insect on the planet. No sensible biologist will accept the idea that humans are more complex than any other animal - such an idea is far too close to the religious idea that man is the pinnacle of evolution.
Onto more pressing matters, calling the cane toad Bufo marinus falsely presents the animal as a sea-going amphibian. I demand a change!
I don't think that one need be religious to recognize that humans are the most evolved species in the history of life on earth--a gap between us and all other life forms that is truly exceptional.
However, I will sign that petition to change the name of Bufo marinus! Injustice to amphibians must be combated.
I think that just as soon as a primate comes to my door dressed in his Sunday best and asks me to sign the petition that he typed out himself, I'll be happy to do so.
What? We have to do it for them? I thought we weren't any better than primates!
Ummm, Christine... humans ARE primates. Apes, specifically.
To distinguish monkeys and apes from humans, we've had to adopt the term "non-human primates," or NHP's. (NHP's can't type or circulate petitions, as far as I know, so your intended point remains valid.)
I figured it's better you hear it from me than from Ingrid Newkirk. AR's dearly love to split hairs. Well, as long as the hair fell off the animal naturally and the animal experienced no stress in the process.
Wesley, what do you think most evolved means?
Humans are no more evolved than any other organism. All have evolved in the same amount of time. We all came from a common ancestor, and evolved in different directions. I'm guessing your idea of 'most evolved' refers to the direction that evolution took, and not how much evolution happened.
I think this comes from a misnomer that evolution progresses (or aims) towards human-ness (not helped by that misleading 'march of the hominids' that symbolises evolution). See this picture from Berkeley's Evolution 101 website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/laddervstree.gif
Joshua: Great name. I know generally the theory of evolution. But it seems to me that evolution does NOT aim toward humanness. Indeed, what is truly exceptional is that humans are the only species to have somehow develop attributes and capacities that have never before seen in the billions of years of this planet.
However (and if there is a whyever in this regard), that is truly exceptional.
I see your point - we are unique in many respects. But other animals also have characteristics that are unique.
In the words of science writer Matt Ridley, "We are a unique species, completely unlike any other. [...] But in the animal kingdom, there is nothing exceptional in being unique. Every species is unique."
But Joshua: We're not just part of the animal kindgom. We have also transcended the natural world to the point that we create our own environments. And we are the only species that, to our knoweledge, ever has in the universe.
We are not just animals. We are more.
What do you mean by 'we create our own environments'? Are we not only doing the same thing, only to a greater degree, as beavers do when felling forests to dam a pond or as termites do when building a mound in which to house themselves and their aphids?
Joshua: Beavers do not shape their environment like we do. Not even close. They are hard wired to build their dams and are merely acting as nature compels them. Birds building nests, ditto.
We are different, in degree and kind. We have escaped such limitations to the point that in some venues we are urged to seize control of our own evolution! Name one other speceies that cold even contemplate that. Only we can bend nature to our will--sometimes anyway--and not always be subject to the vageries of the natural world upon us.
So, other animals can bend the environment, but they are not aware they are doing it. We humans are aware of our actions and choose them freely.
Seems to me that it is self-awareness that is separating humans from the other animals, not our influence over our environment.
Well, now we are in the land of the quibble. But animals are not really bending the environment, their "alterations" are part of the environment, part of how they evolved to behave.
Not so with us in the sense that we somehow evolved beyond instinct to consciousness and intentionality with regard to these matters.
Of course, this is just one of the aspects of our exceptionality.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home