Other Terasem Journals

All Together Now: Developmental and Ethical Considerations for Biologically Uplifting Nonhuman Animals

George Dvorsky

page 4 of 7

One of the bonobos, a 25-year-old, can accurately answer questions equivalent to that of a three year-old human and is able to make up sentences using several lexigram words. In addition, because chimps' vocal tracts make it impossible for them to replicate human speech, the bonobos communicate by using touch-sensitive computer screens with over 250 symbols.[1] Like their human handlers, the apes are using their newfound tools to overcome their biological limitations.

Indeed, over the course of the experiment, the lines between cultural and biological uplift are already starting to blur. The bonobos have even been given a type of cybernetic augmentation in the form of a voice synthesizer to vocalize their desires. Without more significant biological augmentation, however, the Great Ape Trust experiment has its limitations. Thomas Suddendorf, an experimental psychologist from Queensland, is skeptical about the researchers’ hopes that the apes will learn to communicate more complex notions. He contends that bonobo psychology is intractably limited, citing their inability to consider abstract concepts such as past or future, their inability to grasp syntax, and the fact that they have yet to display active teaching behaviours.[2]

Nevertheless, the Great Ape Trust model is an excellent starting block for not just cultural uplift, but for biological uplift as well. This endeavor is not meant to assimilate or "humanize" nonhuman species, but instead efforts that work to advance apes and their proto-culture. In this way, bonobos and other potentially uplifted nonhumans will ideally become autonomous decision making agents within a larger inter-species society. As the organizers of the Trust themselves state, the apes’ intelligence, communication, social interactions and cultural expression must be advanced respectfully, honorably and openly.

Uplift Ethics
In looking at the colonization of the Americas, and considering ongoing trends in economic, political and cultural globalization, it appears that more advanced civilizations influence, either actively or passively, other less developed societies to come along for the ride. As the human moral and legal purview expands to include nonhuman persons, it is not too extreme to suggest that humanity will increasingly come to be concerned with the welfare of highly sapient animals. Uplift need not be considered unjust or coercive; the impetus that drives human civilization is one of progress and refinement. Consequently, it may not only be a good thing to uplift nonhuman animals, but as it will now be argued, it may also be within the realm of human obligations.

Cosnsidering Nonhuman Persons
Humanity’s relationship with animals has varied drastically over the millennia. Animals were once (and some still are) our predators, contributing directly to the course of human evolution. They have inspired us artistically from the time we were first able to translate our thoughts onto the walls of a cave. They have played an indelible part in our religions, at once the object of reverence, and later the object of our dominion. We have made them into our beasts of burden. They have entertained us. Animals have joined us in combat as our vehicles, weapons and messengers. We have kept animals as our companions, tried and punished them in human courts, moulded them into bizarre forms and driven entire species into extinction. Today, our relationship with animals is still changing, the most recent development being the rise of the animal rights movement.

The modern animal rights movement was given its kick-start in 1975 by Australian bioethicist Peter Singer by virtue of his seminal book, Animal Liberation. Since that time, Singer has worked to advance the notion that personhood is not exclusive to Homo sapiens in both in the cognitive and legal sense. To this end he founded the Great Ape Project, which in addition to advocating for ape personhood, sets aside more modest tasks like establishing minimum space requirements for animals in confinement.[3]

Singer's revolution is arguably still in its infancy, but there have been some recent breakthroughs that are taking the movement to the next phase. New Zealand took the first steps by passing an animal welfare act in 1999 declaring that research, testing or teaching involving the use of a great ape requires government approval -- a move that essentially banned the practices. Britain soon thereafter invoked a similar ban. More recently, in April 2006 members of Spain's socialist party announced that it would introduce a bill calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." [4] New Zealand is current working to introduce similar legislation hoping to promote ape status from property to person. Such measures would represent a noteworthy step beyond mere moral consideration to that of enforceable protections. Should these bills be passed, states would be responsible for the welfare and protection of legally recognized nonhuman persons.

The rationale behind the creation of these bills is the realization that great apes and humans share similar psychological attributes such as the capacity for strong self-awareness, emotion, empathy and language. Work in genetics has revealed that the great apes and humans share nearly 98-percent of their genome.[5] Various intelligence tests, brain scans and observations indicate cognitive faculties similar to those of humans. Given the mounting scientific and empirical evidence, it is becoming increasingly unacceptable to withhold consent in regards to the presence of animal consciousness and emotional experience.

Dvorsky
Image 4: An evolutionary chart showing our ancestors, the great apes. Copyright 2006 Futura-Sciences.com.

Footnotes
1. James Langton "Chimps in 'Big Brother house' will learn how to be human", The Telegraph, May 15, 2005; Daniel Dasey, "Watching apes play Big Brother to learn more about ourselves", The Sydney Morning Herald, May 1, 2005. (back to top)

2. IBID. (back to top)

3. For more information, go to http://www.greatapeproject.org.
(back to top)

4. “Socialists: Give apes human rights”, The Spain Herald; David Rennie, "Drive to give 'human' rights to apes leaves Spanish divided", The Telegraph UK, June 10, 2006. (back to top)

5. Ann Gibbons, "Comparative Genetics: Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?" Science 281, 5382 (4 Sep 1998): 1432 - 1434. (back to top)

<previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next page>
Back to Current Issue Contents

The Terasem Pledge

We pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem, and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently, with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.

TerasemJournal.com Home | Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology | Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness
Submission Guidelines | Editors and Sponsorship | Contact