Great Ape Personhood. Really?

            We can all agree that great apes like chimpanzees and orangutans are like humans in a number of ways, but there has recently been a push to grant great apes personhood.  What?  Not only is the idea preposterous, but also think: what exactly would these great apes do with a legal “personhood?” An attainable goal of the great ape personhood movement is to stop testing on great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans).   This has already been accomplished in many places Germany, Spain and New Zealand have all stopped testing on primates.  Switzerland even recognized these great apes as “beings” not “things.” 

            One main point of contention surrounding great ape personhood is what makes something a “person”?  Some criteria for personhood are the ability to act (agency), self-awareness and the idea of past & future.  Do great apes possess all of these?  And if so, what other animals do?  Surely there are other animals that are self-aware.  Research has shown that dolphins are self-aware.  Can dolphins be persons too? 

            Critics of the great ape personhood movement ask another question.  What are babies?  Human babies are not self-aware and they do not understand past and future; so are they not people?  Do they not have the same rights as adults?  Are apes more persons than babies?

            I can agree with someone if they want to stop animal testing or provide saved apes with a safe habitat, but I feel that using the term “personhood” brings the argument further from that point.  Why would an ape even want personhood?  What could they do with it?  People native to the United States are citizens who can vote and drive.  Would chimpanzees be eligible for this?

            The next thought in my mind is that we would be creating a second-class citizen, much like slaves or non-white Americans prior to civil rights movements.  This is immoral; any person should be valued just the same as the rest.  Great apes would soon be voting and driving, or there would be an uprising against this injustice!  And they don’t even care about “personhood.”

See what people think of monkeys driving!

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/should-monkeys-be-able-to-drive-cars/question-306455/?link=ibaf&q=monkey+driving+a+car&imgurl=http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/16/633518353103604795-text-messaging---lol-no-im-nt-busy-im-only-drving---demotivator.jpg

·      Great Ape Standing and Personhood, http://www.personhood.org/

·      Great Ape Personhood, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

·      Person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Great Ape Personhood. Really?

            We can all agree that great apes like chimpanzees and orangutans are like humans in a number of ways, but there has recently been a push to grant great apes personhood.  What?  Not only is the idea preposterous, but also think: what exactly would these great apes do with a legal “personhood?” An attainable goal of the great ape personhood movement is to stop testing on great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans).   This has already been accomplished in many places Germany, Spain and New Zealand have all stopped testing on primates.  Switzerland even recognized these great apes as “beings” not “things.” 

            One main point of contention surrounding great ape personhood is what makes something a “person”?  Some criteria for personhood are the ability to act (agency), self-awareness and the idea of past & future.  Do great apes possess all of these?  And if so, what other animals do?  Surely there are other animals that are self-aware.  Research has shown that dolphins are self-aware.  Can dolphins be persons too? 

            Critics of the great ape personhood movement ask another question.  What are babies?  Human babies are not self-aware and they do not understand past and future; so are they not people?  Do they not have the same rights as adults?  Are apes more persons than babies?

            I can agree with someone if they want to stop animal testing or provide saved apes with a safe habitat, but I feel that using the term “personhood” brings the argument further from that point.  Why would an ape even want personhood?  What could they do with it?  People native to the United States are citizens who can vote and drive.  Would chimpanzees be eligible for this?

            The next thought in my mind is that we would be creating a second-class citizen, much like slaves or non-white Americans prior to civil rights movements.  This is immoral; any person should be valued just the same as the rest.  Great apes would soon be voting and driving, or there would be an uprising against this injustice!  And they don’t even care about “personhood.”

See what people think of monkeys driving!

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/should-monkeys-be-able-to-drive-cars/question-306455/?link=ibaf&q=monkey+driving+a+car&imgurl=http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/16/633518353103604795-text-messaging---lol-no-im-nt-busy-im-only-drving---demotivator.jpg

• ·      Great Ape Standing and Personhood, http://www.personhood.org/
• ·      Great Ape Personhood, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
• ·      Person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Add Insult to Injustice

            Imagine if a coal-burning power plant suddenly moved into the lot behind your home.  You would like to have a say in whether a power plant could open in your backyard, right?  If environmental justice were served, your word would be heard and appreciated, and the plant would probably not be constructed there.  However, for hundreds of years until the present, environmental justice has not been available for all people especially the poor.

            Environmental Justice is  "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."  In layman’s terms this means that all people should be considered when any changes to the environment are made.  For a long time, factories, power plants or any structures that would be an eyesore were built in or near poor communities.  This way, the rich profiting from these health hazards could reap the benefits of these services but not be affected by their consequences. Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, notes this problem quite well; “there are some people who are in elected offices who see nothing wrong with placing every single facility in one community and saying, ‘Well, there’s nothing wrong with it because it has to go somewhere.’”

            This is referred to as the NIMBY movement (Not In My Backyard).  This movement of earlier 20^th century moved unwanted land uses such as landfills and hazardous productions from middle-class communities to poor communities with large minority populations.  NIMBY mentality was so prevalent that it spawned another similar policy’s acronym.   PIBBY: Place In Blacks’ Backyard.  Yes, this is a documented name for this inconsiderate planning.   

Today, the need for environmental justice has become more apparent, and people in positions of power are often acting more responsibly. This means they realize that it is not right for the majority of a nation’s population to benefit from a service that degrades the living conditions of another group of citizens.  Unfortunately, this problem of environmental injustice is far from gone.    

• Environmental Justice, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice
• Patterns emerge on race and environment, The Carrboro Citizen, http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2007/11/15/patterns-emerge-on-race-and-environment/