Because of the similarity of human genes to ape genes, Jonathan Marks, a well-known molecular anthropologist, assesses a number of issues in his book, including human genetic science, racism, animal rights and cloning. In Chapter 8, titled "Human Rights...For Ape?" he expresses his take on the idea of human rights for the great apes, or the aim of The Great Ape Project.
Marks thinks that there are two facts that are crucial to this idea. First is "apes aren't human." Second is "we can't even guarantee human rights to humans." He asserts that the fundamental basis of the idea is the apes' genetic similarity to humans. But the category "human" is always determined by "reproductive compatibility and ecological niche"and never genetic similarity. Furthermore, the idea of equal rights are usually granted to "citizens," and who can be considered as a citizen is determined by political reasons. Thus, asking people to accept the new notion that genetic distance should decide the appropriation of rights can be difficult.
The author also mentions an important question, "are apes merely disabled people?" Many people have apes to small children or mentally disabled humans because they have resembling cognitive perfomance. Marks disapproves the belief that because we give human rights to children, to the metally disabled, the autistics, the deaf, the dumb, etc, we should also give rights to apes, whose state of being human can be recognized through the same reasoning and communicating skills. He stresses that humans have human rights by merely being born human, automatically receiving citizenship. Losing the ability to reason or to communicate does not cause the person to lose his humaness and rights. Apes, on the other hand, are nonhuman. He states that "human rights should neither be forfeitable nor accessible by nonhumans. That is not to say that other beings should have no rights; it is merely to say that the phrase 'human rights' has no meaning if it does not apply to all humans and only to humans." (191)
In general, Marks believes that apes should have protection or even rights, just not human rights.
So, the question is should the human-animal hybrids have human rights? Applying Marks ideas, even animals that are 98% similar to humans cannot be granted human rights, how can it possible fo some one with say 60% human genes to be granted.
Personally, I do not have an extremely strong opinion on this issue and think both sides are reasonable. Then I realize it might be because of the fact that I am always thinking about the cute animals.
-------------------------------
Considering the cuteness, Marks declares that the ape-conservation activists and animal-rights activists use apes as a starting point to try to liberate all animals because apes are among the cutest animals.
Marks has wrote on page 185:
"Apes are often objectified by callous and cynical entrepreneurs, who neither regard them nor treat them as the sentient, emotionally complex creatures they are.They are generally disposed of when whey lose their cuteness, usually less than one-fifth of the way through their lives. The lucky ones can live out their lives in the care of an enlightened or sympathetic zoo or primate research facility with sensitive caretakers and handlers. Most, of course are not lucky."
I believe this can be true for all kinds of animals, and in my case, all hybrids. They are more likely to be accepted at a younger age because of their appearances.
No comments:
Post a Comment