English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Gorillas, bonobos, orang-utans and chimps are great apes
Chimpanzees and bonobos differ from humans by only 1% of DNA and could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney
All great apes recognise themselves in a mirror
Elephants and dolphins show similar self-awareness
Great apes can learn and use human languages through signs or symbols but lack the vocal anatomy to master speech
Great apes have displayed love, fear, anxiety and jealousy

So are they people in a way ? And should they get some kind of protection ? If so, how could you justify it only on the basis of similarity to humans - I mean why not extend the protection to for example worms ? Read the article below, which I have used for this information. Please, no one word answers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6505691.stm

2007-03-30 06:43:30 · 25 answers · asked by gav 4 in Science & Mathematics Biology

25 answers

Apes are apes. People are people.

However, we are highly related. In fact, I have a few cousins who might be apes...

2007-03-30 06:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by sci55 5 · 0 3

It depends on how you define "people".

All humans are apes.
Some apes are humans. Some other apes are gorillas, chimps, bonobos, etc.

Currently we tend to define a "person" as a "human". But you're right that this needn't always be true - we can imagine an intelligent computer or robot as being a "person". So can we imagine a non-human ape as a person? I personally believe we can - some great apes have been taught sign language.

However it's very difficult to know how to draw the line. If we don't do it on the basis of species, but on intelligence or use of language, we are forced to recognise that a healthy gorilla may be more intelligent than, for example, a brain-damaged child. So does that mean the gorilla would be recognised as a person but the child wouldn't?

The philosophical questions are very interesting and far from being settled yet.

2007-04-02 06:37:41 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel R 6 · 1 1

1% is a rather substantial amount when looking at DNA. With somewhere in the range of 150,000 genes, that 1% accounts for 1500 substantially different gene codes.

The question of protection comes down to one of ethics. As a population, we do not provide adequate protection for humans(abortion, Darfur, Serbia, etc.), why would we for non-humans? The answer is that by standing on our soapbox, we can tell our friends, that we care. It is about selfishness. Plain and simple.

By the way, it is possible to believe in evolution and God. And even to be a "Born Again Christian". I am. Do you think it is possible that "J" (the author of most of the first five books of the old testament) interpreted the information in the best way he could? The more I study chemistry and biology, the more convinced I am that God does exist. The complexities of the world we live in are to great to write them off to a random sequence of events. But Darwin never suggested that God does not exist, just that the science indicates that the mechanisms that God used and uses are very complex, but very real.

To deny that natural selection (survival of species that are best suited for an environment) is just plain stupid. And ignorant of the complexity and improbability of life.

I realize that this last diatribe is beyond your question, but it is really directed to one of your responders.

Ken

2007-03-30 14:02:38 · answer #3 · answered by Ken B 3 · 1 1

Apes are clearly not people, but that is to their advantage.
People treat other animals terribly because of our delusion that we are better than other animals.
Because humans can do humans things which no other animal can do, we are taught that other animals are inferior to us.
Apes do not, despite the movies to the contrary, put human beings in cages, and show them to other Apes.
Chickens do not put human beings in over crowded sheds, give them antibiotics to make them grow fat, and then sell the fat babies for food.

No, no other animal is anything like a human being in the way they treat other animals.
And all animals should protected from human cruelty.
The problem is that only the species which has the ability to protect them, is the same species which continually abuses them.

2007-03-30 14:09:42 · answer #4 · answered by Sprinkle 5 · 0 1

Theres an article in the newspaper about a gorilla who was taught sign language and he seemed to be a very compassionate empathic ape others have too
http://deafness.about.com/cs/signfeats2/a/signinganimals.ht

2007-03-31 05:20:55 · answer #5 · answered by ~*tigger*~ ** 7 · 0 0

Scientist try to make that 1% sound like we are almost apes. But in the world of DNA, that 1% might as well 99%. DNA is an exact science. If it is off by .001%, then it ain't it!

2007-04-03 13:25:08 · answer #6 · answered by highly_favored 1 · 0 1

no, they're not people even if they are close to our DNA by 1%. That's why they're classified as apes and not considered as people because their features are different. You can easily distinguish an ape from a human right? coz they have different features from humans. like physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. They are close to being humans but they are not humans.

2007-03-30 14:02:22 · answer #7 · answered by athena 2 · 0 0

No people are often apes in as much as they allow their primitive instincts to overrule their intelligence .

Apes on the other hand live by their primitive instinct and use their intelligence only to improve their lives .

The similar traits you describe are all emotional and emotions are in their truest form only instincts .

Instinct is shared by all living creatures or else they would not live .

Man is the only animal on Earth to commit suicide and so it is an insult to apes to make the comparison .

2007-03-30 13:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Actually apes may be people although scientists have shown that there is only 1 or 2% of our DNA in apes or vice versa but there is still advanced research to be done into this.

So in theory apes may be people

2007-03-31 16:24:03 · answer #9 · answered by Connor M 2 · 0 1

Ken needs to check some facts before responding as a graduate student of geo-something.

He starts with a great exageration of the number of human genes - it's less than 30,000, not 150,000 as he says. Then, he goes on and goes on.. and on.... from there.

2007-03-30 16:03:24 · answer #10 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0 0

We're different from them in the matter of degree of integrated consciousness. We're religious/spiritual. We're engineers. None of those animals have those qualities.

Yes, they should be protected, because we should cherish all the biodiversity of the Earth. But no, they don't get any recognition as people, because they aren't people.

2007-03-30 14:11:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers