Skip to main content

Chimps can't ape humans

A chimp

Language is the defining characteristic of human beings because, mainly through language, we create our representation of the world and act on it: history, art, film making, science, maths, literature, architecture, electronics, and so on, all require us to be capable of modelling the world.

Modelling the world is closely linked to our feelings about the world.We develop empathy and compassion because one human can represent how another feels in their mind. I feel your pain - I really do - and I share in your hopes and wishes.

In literature we live vicariously and intensely, and some of our strongest feelings may derive, not from our own experience, but from vicarious experience.

This does not entitle us to greater freedom from pain and want than an animal. But humans have to be given the opportunity to fully inhabit the world of representation and imagination. People do not live by bread alone. An essential human right is a universal education, not simply the education of a worker bee. To deny any human the right to a universal education is great cruelty. Cruelty that would be lost on an ape.

If we are fully human then we can imagine what it is like to be a chimp, but the chimp can never imagine accurately what it like to be us. Perhaps this also is how creatures that we may encounter in future that are more complex and interesting than we are may view us. That difference would be inconceivable to us, by definition.

Nevertheless, you have to be wary of arguments that make us feel too special. These arguments eat themselves:  the Nazis – 'Little Men', Reich called them – used Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' to demonstrate Aryan superiority. As more advanced 'Nordics', they argued, the Germans deserved more.

The death of 3 thousand westerners is a world tragedy because they are more human. They are more like us. The death of 655 thousand Iraqis is subordinate because they are less like us. We see the Vietnam war from the perspective of suffering US soldiers, not the suffering Vietnamese, 2 million of whom died.

To the supporter of Apartheid in South Africa, the needs of the civilised white man were much greater, and the rest of the population could content itself with the second rate and count themselves lucky. The rest of the population didn't need an education. They didn't and couldn't live in the same complex world. They were less than fully human. This is the way humans treat other humans when they fail to see their reflection, when they play on difference.

If we have the capacity to imagine that we are Chimpanzees, and we do, and certainly people like the animal rights activists and Peter Singer think they do, then we should be kind and respectful towards them. The same should be true of our treatment of all animals. We should have stewardship over them, which is not the same as the right to exploit animals. This our nature. The imagination inspires more kindness than rationalism.  Failures of the imagination lead to cruelty.

We also need to make clear distinctions between apes and other animals. The similarity of these apes to us, for all our civilization, means that it is disturbing to keep them as pets or use them as workers. We prefer dumber animals like dogs and cats. We didn't domesticate apes, though they might have been useful, we domesticated horses instead - and enslaved other humans. 

The planet of the Apes films are good because they explore the ambiguous relationship humans have with apes. Apes are too human. Apes are not human enough. In rejecting apes as symbiotes we destroy them in evolutionary terms. They do not symbiotically share the biosphere with us. Apes are relegated. Had they been  used as symbiotes apes would be in a far better position.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov...

The Guardian books bloggers' poetry anthology

There more to composing poetry online than this. ..isn't there? I don't really like conventional poetry of knowing. I love the poetry of words coming into being. The Guardian is going to publish a printable book online with our poems in it and the Irish poet, Billy Mills is getting it together with Sarah Crown, the literary editor. Good for them. Let's also remember that Carol Rumens got the ball rolling. Does Des feature in this anthology? Taboo-busting Steve Augustine decided not to join in. So what are we left with? In the anthology we will be left with a colourful swatch of well-meant, undeniably conventional, occasionally clever, verses - some of them. But there could be, there should be and there is a lot more to on-line poetry than this. Than agile monkeys, koalas and sad sloths climbing up word trees. Perhaps we should focus in on translation, because in translation there is a looseness of form and a dynamism such as, it seems, we can't easily encounter in our...

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-...