I Am Not a Chimp--And Neither Are You
As promised, I have a more extended piece up at the Weekly Standard Website demonstrating that the case for granting equal rights to chimpanzees with humans is not justified scientifically. First, I describe the ideological agenda behind the effort to reduce humans to the status of apes. From my column:
THERE IS A CONCERTED advocacy campaign underway across several disciplines aimed at knocking human beings off our pedestal of moral exceptionalism and redefining us as merely another animal in the forest. Toward this end, elements of the natural world are being personalized by public intellectuals, even as they seek to strip personhood from some people. The point of this ideological drive is to degrade our perceived self-worth so much that we will readily sacrifice human prosperity and welfare "to save the planet" or "for the animals," while undercutting the power of theistic religion in general, and Judeo-Christian moral teaching in particular, to influence public policies.But what about our alleged close genetic relationship with chimpanzees?
[T]he purported 94-98 percent [genetic]similarity [between humans and chimps]--whichever it is--doesn't compare total genetic makeup, but only the DNA that "encodes proteins," that is, that stimulates the production of the building blocks of our physical bodies and functions...But what about the similarity between humans and chimps at the protein coding level? First, as Bill Hurlbut explains, even identical genes express differently across species, and hence, may produce different outcomes. Beyond that the "98%" identical meme masks tremendous biological differences, at least 40 million of which have been identified:
[R]ecent studies have surprised scientists, showing that [non coding]junk DNA isn't really junk, but has a function. Research continues as to its exact purposes, but given the significant differences between human and chimp non-coding DNA, even if the purported 98 percent similarity of coding-DNA is true, it actually applies to only a small percentage of our total functional genetic makeup.
Forty million biological differences at the most fundamental biological level of life from whence our form and function spring is no mere crack in the pavement, as the likes of Goodall, Dawkins, and Singer would have us believe. No wonder geneticist Svante Paabo, a chimp consortium member based at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, told Science, "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number [of similarities between chimps and humans]. In the end," he said, "it's a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences."Which gets us back to what is really going on:
Ideology--not science--is the nub of the matter, reflecting a fervent desire among the "all we are is apes" crowd to destroy the cultural values explicitly upholding the highest moral worth of human beings. Society may choose to go the ape route, of course. But it is perfectly clear that the proposed radical changes in morality and law are not justified by current scientific understanding.Out of necessity, the piece is a bit arcane, but I think it is important for those of us fighting off the assaults on human exceptionalism to know that the science supports our position, not that of the "all we are is apes" crowd.
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Great Ape Project. Chimp-Human Genetic Differences
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:21 AM
37 Comments
37 Comments:
"the Great Ape Project (GAP), which seeks a United Nations declaration that human beings, apes, chimps, bonobos, and orangutans are all members of a so-called "community of equals," and hence are all entitled to Declaration of Independence-type "rights" to life, liberty, and freedom from torture."
So do you think the apes will be granted the "right to life"? My! they will be ahead of babies in the US.
darlajune: Spain is about to legally adopt the GAP, so in Spain, you are right.
Nice piece. With all the credibility problems the UN has already, I hope they stay miles away from this proposal.
Hello Wesley. I like you and all and think of you as being a pretty sharp cookie but I really don't need you or Spain to tell me that Monkeys lack the most basic of human attributes. When I see Wesley Smith I know that he is 100% human with qualities such as oratory & societal attributes that chumpy the chimp will never realize. Even without the DNA verification, monkeys just aren't the moral agents & diversely qualified species that humans are. I refuse to allow morons to drive my car and I think folks that are trying to tell me monkeys are a capable sub species ,equal to humans has been smoking to much hemp. Good point about the human abortion issue to.Those little tykes have certainly encased within their genetic makeup the qualities that could flower into a world leader in maths, sciences, theology and the most moral of humankind. However those aspirations are snuffed out before they have even completed gestation period but monkeys have right to life?????????? We have slid down a very steep slope into the bowels of inhumanity towards our own species and yet we want to elevate the monkey. How sad.
donnie, keep in mind chimps/gorilla/orangutans are not monkeys - they are apes, like us.
I'd also like to point out that the DNA similarity, while often used to support rights for great apes, is actually irrelevant. If by convergent evolution some other species, say a cephalopod or an alien that doesn't even use DNA, should have similar abilities and interests as an adult chimpanzee, then I should expect that they would be given rights also.
Hello Joshua. The point of the article and the point you are missing in your reply to me is they are not just like us at all in physiology and certainly not in the traits that make us specifically human.
As for the last remark per evolution it has been proven that we stand alone every time you hear a speech by Winston Churchill, hear Beethoven's fifth or look at a Chimp sticking a stick in a hole to pull up some termites and see a 747 leaving for Japan or see a hospital ward where the Soul of humanity is laid bare...
The article mostly looked at genetic differences, which as I said are really irrelevant (after all, human foetuses have 100% human DNA).
Of these traits that make us specifically human, if some other species should one day start to show these traits, we should give them rights, no? And if some human group should lose them, they lose their rights, yes?
Saying they are irrelevant differences is a moot claim as proven by our differences though Joshua. In the same light,what right has the human fetus which would definitely grow up human have versus you hypothetical future alien life form?? As for now ,I do not have any belief that apes have any true resemblance to our human qualities in such a manner that they should have rights that we as a society don't even grant our own Fetuses. Thus I stand by my first observation. "We have slid down a very steep slope of inhumanity to our own species and now we wish to elevate the Monkey/Great Ape Society." Not for me!!
Joshua, that they are monkeys or snails is irrelevant to your perspective.
We are also not apes. We, like they are primates. But so are monkeys, and lemurs and you would agree they are not apes.
This isn't my strong suit, so correct me if I am wrong on the science. We are of the homo genus. Apes are not. We are also bipeds. Apes are not. We are hominidae, because we are bipedal. Apes are not.
The only way we are apes is if some scientists prevail in their desire to include and apes in a category known as hominoids. But I suspect that is political.
Wesley, humans have been considered apes at least since Linneaus. The term 'Great ape' refers to the family Hominidae (the extant members of which are humans and all species of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) with the term 'ape' referring to both great and lesser apes (i.e. gibbons) of the super-family Hominoidea.
Given that it is taxonomically incorrect to group organisms in a way that doesn't include all descendants of the common ancestor of the organisms within the group, there is no way that gorillas and chimpanzees can be apes without humans being apes also. Chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to any other ape.
The new approach which you just discussed--based on taxonomy--doesn't make us apes. It makes us part of the superfamily Hominoidea. And that concept has not been absoultely agreed upon, nor settled.
Under that very broad category, I understand there are three families, and gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. belong in a different one than us, which makes sense because we are completely different species. Now, I guess ape could be used as a moniker for Hominoidea. But given we can't interbreed, we have different numbers of chromosomes, there are tens of millions of biological differences, our phenome is different, etc., etc., it doesn't much matter.
But a superfamily takes in a lot of territy. We are Hominoidea perhaps. But apes, no. They belong in a different family.
But again, that is based on some reading I am doing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Ok, back in the early 1900s and even up to the 60s, apes were the family Pongidae and humans were family Hominidea.
Recent paleoanthropology and cladistic analysis, using molecular tools (analysis of protein similarities, then later DNA) saw these two families merge and the whole phylogeny change. This was debated for much of the early 80s, but it is now very much settled. We humans are in the same family as apes.
Now whether the common usage of the term ape has changed, I don't know, but at least in biological journals everyone would expect that humans would be included when you talk of the apes or great apes.
We do have different numbers of chromosomes to other great apes, because our chromosome 2 is the result of the head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, which in other apes are now known as 2a and 2b (previously known as 12 and 13). In fact, our #2 still contains a second but inactive centromere (that's the middle part of a chromosome) as well as vestigial telomeres (the ends of chromosomes) in the middle of #2.
To my knowledge, there isn't much evidence for the reproductive isolation of humans from chimpanzees. Horses and zebras, for example, differ in number of chromosomes and genetic differences to a greater degree than humans and chimps, and zebras and horses can breed with one other (though 'zorses' are sterile). We also know that human sperm can penetrate the egg of a female gibbon. Although no 'humanzees' have been confirmed, I doubt many have tried either.
All very interesting. Thank you Joshua.
Hello once again Joshua. For me I have no interest in elevating the status of chimps or other primates into our human family. I respect you for your human traits and recognize that the qualities you have offered in defense of Great Apes are mooted by the fact that they are not humans. You and I can discuss principles and rights that no other animal on the planet can express or reciprocate & that distinction alone is enough to distance me from Spain's Great Ape claims. Within the human family I also recognize that we have shown disrespect for the lives of human fetus while trying to elevate the Great Apes as a protected status just because we have put ideological fallacy that really isn't supportable in my opinion.
I must note that you have stuck doggedly to the human and ape equality that if brought to fruition in Spain will protect life of great apes but ignores the same right in human fetus. Do you not see the contradiction is that humans are devalued greatly while Great Apes are wrongly elevated.
I have explained here, and in other comments here at SHS, that species/race/genetics is irrelevant. What matters is the characteristics of the individual in question. The fact that adult chimpanzees have more relevant characteristics than human foetuses is the reason for them being valued more highly.
If one, just one, ape (or any other animal) at any point in time ever plays the role of moral agent, it will be then and only then will I consider rights for apes (or any other animal). The day that an ape compensates humans for violating human rights will be the day that I will scream for apes to have rights. But that day will never happen.
And this Great Ape Project thing is dishonest. They don't want apes to have rights because of how genetically close apes are to humans or because of apes' cognitive levels. The same people who back this project believe all animals should have rights. This is merely a springboard.
If animal rights are ever taken to the extreme that animal rights activists want them to go, apes will eventually have more rights than humans. Unbelievable.
JDD: Yes, I think the issue of duties is the key. It is the one uniquely human attribute that can't be explained away.
"What matters is the characteristics of the individual in question."
This is so scary to me. Why can't this type of thinking apply to adult humans as well? And if it does, how can one justify an ape having more rights and considerations than an adult human?
Sorry, for the double post. I actually meant 'adult men and women'. "Characteristics" can be used to discriminate against women. (and men too but it would definitely hit women harder)
"Horses and zebras, for example, differ in number of chromosomes and genetic differences to a greater degree than humans and chimps, and zebras and horses can breed with one other (though 'zorses' are sterile)."
This is only partially correct. According to Haldane's Rule, only the "heterogametic sex" [in mammals, that's the male sex] is infertile. The female is still fertile.
However, she can only breed with either parent species. She would not be able to breed with, say, a donkey.
"We also know that human sperm can penetrate the egg of a female gibbon. Although no 'humanzees' have been confirmed, I doubt many have tried either."
Possibly because who in their right minds [other than zoophiles who think sex with animals is OK] would breed with a chimp?
"I must note that you have stuck doggedly to the human and ape equality that if brought to fruition in Spain will protect life of great apes but ignores the same right in human fetus. Do you not see the contradiction is that humans are devalued greatly while Great Apes are wrongly elevated."
This argument, as far as I'm concerned, illustrates the illogic of the animal rights folks. Frankly, the rights of human babies [born or not] and their arguments over such an issue will always trump the arguments for the rights of animals simply because what's being argued over is a human being, not an animal.
No human at any point will become an animal, nor have we ever.
Humans may be animals, but we're vastly superior to all the rest.
Also, I have to wonder something: if the GAP wants to grant rights to apes while telling us "we're all just apes", will they try and make a moral argument in favour of us emulating our hairy kin?
Think about that for a moment, the behaviours of apes that, in humans are considered immoral and illegal...
"No human at any point will become an animal, nor have we ever."
Read that as "No human at any point will become another species of animal, nor have we ever".
"If one, just one, ape (or any other animal) at any point in time ever plays the role of moral agent, it will be then and only then will I consider rights for apes (or any other animal)."
The ability to play a moral agent doesn't appear to correlate with. Would you argue that because a severely mentally retarded human cannot (at any point in time) act as a moral agent, they should not receive rights?
"This is so scary to me. Why can't this type of thinking apply to adult humans as well? And if it does, how can one justify an ape having more rights and considerations than an adult human?"
That depends on the characteristics of the adult humans and adult chimpanzees in question. If we are talking about a cognitively impaired human or a cognitively advanced ape, it is possible that chimpanzee should have more considerations taken into account than the adult human.
"Characteristics" can be used to discriminate against women.
Only if you can argue that the differences between men and women are morally relevant, which would certainly be a stretch.
"Think about that for a moment, the behaviours of apes that, in humans are considered immoral and illegal..."
I don't see a difference here between that and those behaviours in humans (say, children or the cognitively impaired) that we also think are immoral.
Nobody is arguing that we should act like 6-year old humans simply because we give rights to those humans.
No human at any point will become another species of animal, nor have we ever
So, speciation among humans is biologically impossible, you say? And I suppose evolution is false too?
Jpshua: Let's not talk in circles. You say we should each be individually measured. If we fail to pass muster, we are not persons and hence, it is the end of universal human rights.
I argue, as do others, that the issue is species membership regardless of invidual capacities, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) that this is the only way to preserve universal human rights. Your way leads to infanticide--which you have already said is ok--non voluntary euthanasia, harvesting people diagnosed in PVS for their organs, etc. Most people, I think, would call that tyranny.
Hence the impotance of this issue.
"Would you argue that because a severely mentally retarded human cannot (at any point in time) act as a moral agent, they should not receive rights?"
Nope. I don't believe in discrimination. But I also don't believe that 'some humans and animals are more equal than some humans and animals'. Why won't you acknowledge the fact that while most humans act as moral agents; no ape act as a moral agent? Or does your theories only rest on extreme examples? I would argue that because most humans act as moral agents--all humans should have rights. I've drawn my line in the sand. If one non-human animal can serve as a moral agent, then that non-human animal should step foward, and we'll both agree that (some) animals deserve "human" rights. And coming from you, that's a dishonest question. How is your 'I'm better than you therefore deserving of more rights' and because of conditions out of your control 'animals are also better than you' theory moral? Human dignity be damned right?
"it is possible that chimpanzee should have more considerations taken into account than the adult human."
This is nothing but pure bigotry.
I find it hard to fathom that Joshua is ignoring the most mitigating reality of the difference between Apes and HUMANITY. Remove a ape from their social order and nobody will be writing an obituary within the ape world. A handicapped human is our moral agent. We support that person because we understand that society of humanity must support each other in order to make us more humanitarian for our efforts. No Ape could ever know the moral obligation we humans feel for those that are in our family and unable to defend their individual rights. Thus the family members support the wounded in our family knowing that other humans understand the value of those reciprocations. How typical that some ARA fanatics demean the value within the human family of applying rights to all humans ,inclusive of mentally handicapped. Yet they would upgrade the Ape to a higher standard without understanding how they have devalued the overall morality of mankind whose overall morality is evident, for an ape who has no morality anywhere within it's species. As for the evolution question about supposing the theory is false,I must point out the missing links. The evolution claim could be a great leap of faith to. Certainly hasn't proved to be an exact science as there are many missing links between the Amoeba , ,stainary plants ,the whale and the morality of a human being who could just as easily have been molded into the World of the Living God.
Sorry for typo. Should read Stationary plants in last sentence.
"Think about that for a moment, the behaviours of apes that, in humans are considered immoral and illegal..."
"I don't see a difference here between that and those behaviours in humans (say, children or the cognitively impaired) that we also think are immoral."
I am talking about roving bands of male chimps actively seeking out individuals belonging to other troops and killing them. Or infanticide.
Behaviours like that.
Are we to emulate these sorts of things in our hairy cousins?
Nobody is arguing that we should act like 6-year old humans simply because we give rights to those humans.
I am not talking about "acting like a six-year-old" I am talking about the behaviours in chimps and other great apes that, were they practised by humans, would be declared immoral, illegal, and downright evil.
"No human at any point will become another species of animal, nor have we ever"
"So, speciation among humans is biologically impossible, you say? And I suppose evolution is false too?"
You're missing my point, but that may be due to a lack of clarity. I'm not talking about speciation here. I am saying that you were born a human being. You will stay a human being. You are not metamorphosing into some other species. A woman, who is pregnant, gives birth to a human baby. She does not give birth to a dog or a cat or a goat.
We might speciate into something else, but more than likely it will just be another species of human. We will not evolve back into chimpanzee-ness, and we certainly won't evolve into cows or pigs.
"Would you argue that because a severely mentally retarded human cannot (at any point in time) act as a moral agent, they should not receive rights?"
The argument that equates those who are mentally impaired with animals is spurious simply because the two are not equal.
The animal who is amoral is amoral by its very nature. It is not suffering from a diminished capacity to function mentally—it is operating normally as per its species.
The human who is amoral is so because of an impairment, and is thus NOT functioning normally as per his or her species.
There's nothing wrong with the animal; there is something wrong with the human.
And, with advances in medicine, we can cure people of such ailments and restore them to a near-normal state, where the individual's cognitive abilities and moral awareness are no different than yours or mine is.
We'll never be able to do that with an animal, because the animal "ain't broken"; it's just fine as-is.
"The animal who is amoral is amoral by its very nature. It is not suffering from a diminished capacity to function mentally—it is operating normally as per its species.
The human who is amoral is so because of an impairment, and is thus NOT functioning normally as per his or her species."
Very good, Tiger. Very good.
"If we fail to pass muster, we are not persons and hence, it is the end of universal human rights."
You obviously have some reason for thinking universal human rights are, incontrovertibly, a good thing to have.
"the morality of a human being who could just as easily have been molded into the World of the Living God."
I suspected as much. I contend that there is no (logical) secular reason for considering all humans to be superior to all other animals. Without invoking the concept of the soul, who can say that a four-cell human embryo is more deserving of rights than a cabbage?
"A woman, who is pregnant, gives birth to a human baby. She does not give birth to a dog or a cat or a goat."
Yes, but if this woman went back far enough in her family tree (a few million years), she'd find that her family tree overlapped with that of any chimpanzee living today. The same would be true of any human being and any chimpanzee.
At no point did a chimpanzee give birth to a human, as each offspring probably differed no more than I differ from my parents. And yet, here we are and there the chimps are.
"The human who is amoral is so because of an impairment, and is thus NOT functioning normally as per his or her species."
This is stupid logic. Suppose that some virus kills off most of the human population, leaving only the immoral psychopaths and amoral mentally impaired. After the virus, what would be normal for the human species is to be functioning amorally. Would humans then be no better than apes, or perhaps even worse than, say, bonobos?
Your logic is just as bigoted as saying that a woman can't be a soldier because it is not normal for her gender to do that, or that a child can't go to university because it is not normal for their age-group to do that. It is never wrong to treat people based on their own abilities, but it can certainly be wrong to treat people based on what is normal for their group. It leads to racism, sexism, ageism and, obviously, speciesism.
Human rights are a very strong point in the relationships between humans. They are negotiable & reciprocating which negates your incontrovertible deflection Joshua ,as dialogue within the human family has a code of ethics which bench marks rights.. Between us and other animal species there is no such exchange nor is their such an exchange in the Great Apes society.
"A woman, who is pregnant, gives birth to a human baby. She does not give birth to a dog or a cat or a goat."
"Yes, but if this woman went back far enough in her family tree (a few million years), she'd find that her family tree overlapped with that of any chimpanzee living today. The same would be true of any human being and any chimpanzee."
And of course you have incontrovertible proof of that statement. Have you heard of the elusive and maybe even highly speculative missing link??
"It is never wrong to treat people based on their own abilities"
I just want to know where all of these apes and chimps with the ability to understand rights and duties are at?
About the 4-cell fetus and cabbage. I might concede that a 4-cell fetus has no more rights than a cabbage, but I believe the 4-cell fetus to be a human 'interest' and the cabbage to not be. Or rather, it's in the human animal's interest to ensure its survival. The 4-cell fetus *could* grow to become a moral agent; the ape, chimp, cabbage--never. These differences HAVE to be acknowledged.
...And Joshua, I believe you were the one to state that children don't have rights. If so, how is it moral for apes to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but not children? How is this not ageism? And when does a human child become qualify for rights and held responsible?
"the morality of a human being who could just as easily have been molded into the World of the Living God."
I suspected as much. I contend that there is no (logical) secular reason for considering all humans to be superior to all other animals. Without invoking the concept of the soul, who can say that a four-cell human embryo is more deserving of rights than a cabbage?
In that case your secular thinking isn't all that deep Joshua. In the secular world of Evolution it is quite obvious that we are the only species with the communication skills & sense of morality based in negotiating rights within our species.
When the amoeba or the baboon elevate themselves to such a plateau you can get back to me. In the mean time I am quite happy with my sense of a human Soul and just because I feel that connection to God doesn't make the Great Ape with no concept of rights or morality any more appealing either. I don't feel Great Apes are Evolutionary evolved because they show no signs of our sense of rights. Just because I believe in God and my Soul doesn't make your observations any more correct Joshua. In the secular evolutionary argument you have not proven Apes deserve rights. Pretending they have climbed to a position that they just might negotiate rights someday doesn't put them up the evolutionary ladder despite your claim that that day might come.
"The 4-cell fetus *could* grow to become a moral agent"
It could well not. I don't see how we can justify treating others based upon how they could be. I could, one day, be a corpse, but that doesn't justify treating me like a corpse.
"If so, how is it moral for apes to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but not children? How is this not ageism?"
It is not ageism in the same way that imprisoning a female criminal but letting an innocent male go free is not sexism. What matters is not gender, age or species, but the properties of the individual in question.
"And when does a human child become qualify for rights and held responsible?"
Those are two different questions. Right to life, about 18 months of age. Right to not be tortured, about 6 months after conception. Criminal responsibility, probably starting at 14 and becoming adult responsibility at 18.
"If we fail to pass muster, we are not persons and hence, it is the end of universal human rights."
"You obviously have some reason for thinking universal human rights are, incontrovertibly, a good thing to have."
Congratulations, Joshua; you're now the Patron Saint of Oppression Everywhere.
With words like this, and "Right to life, about 18 months of age" clearly make you yet another distinguished graduate from the Peter Singer School of Ethics, and, along with the comments from those who know you better, tell me you're not really worth the time or energy required to engage you in any serious debate, just like every other intellectual bounced cheque out there.
I have no intentions of giving myself ulcers trying in vain to explain myself to one who has no desire to understand--or [possibly] the ability.
So. Have a nice day. If you think you have the right to...
[The man who through no fault of his own is born or made amoral deserves our sympathy and compassion, but the man who, despite knowing better, decides and decrees that we should be amoral by ignoring the inherent worth that is possessed by and the rights such worth grants to our own kind by making their observance situational and retractable depending on his own desires, interests and wishes deserves naught but the scorn and ostracism of his peers.]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home